An Introduction to Qualitative Research Synthesis

Managing the Information Explosion in Social Science Research

Claire Howell Major, Maggi Savin-Baden

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136616129
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica generale

Providing a comprehensive guide for understanding, interpreting and synthesizing qualitative studies, An Introduction to Qualitative Research Synthesis shows how data can be collated together effectively to summarise existing bodies of knowledge and to create a more complete picture of findings across different studies

The authors describe qualitative research synthesis and argue for its use, describing the process of data analysis, synthesis and interpretation and provide specific details and examples of how the approach works in practice.

This accessible book:

• 
  
  

• fully explains the qualitative research synthesis approach;

• 
  
  

• provides advice and examples of findings;

• 
  
  

• describes the process of establishing credibility in the research process;

• 
  
  

• provides annotated examples of the work in process;

• 
  
  

• references published examples of the approach across a wide variety of fields.

Helping researchers to understand, make meaning and synthesize a wide variety of datasets, this book is broad in scope yet practical in approach. It will be beneficial to those working in social science disciplines, including researchers, teachers, students and policy makers, especially those interested in methods of synthesis such as meta-ethnography, qualitative meta-analysis, qualitative meta-synthesis, interpretive synthesis, narrative synthesis, and qualitative systematic review.

Part 1

---

Arguing for qualitative
research synthesis

---

Chapter 1

---

Making the case for qualitative
research synthesis

---

Introduction

A number of factors have contributed to the recent drive to approach social science research differently. The morass of existing research reports, for example, has led to a kind of information overload requiring new ways of managing and making sense of them. Research, both qualitative and quantitative, is costly, and lean financial resources have made it imperative to make the most and best use of findings. A number of professional practice sectors including health care, education and social work have encountered a rise in the number and urgency of calls for accountability. Stakeholders want to know that efforts to develop new practices and programmes are effective. Calls for evidence-based practice and policy have also been on the rise, bringing current research practices into question. The underlying notion for such calls is that research should be brought closer to those who are in decision-making roles and further that research should come before an intervention or change in practice or policy (Pawson, 2002). The bottom line is that stakeholders want transparent processes, clear synthesized findings and solid recommendations for both practice and research as a result of the findings.

The convergence of such forces has sparked a debate about the purpose of social science research (see Hammersley and Foster, 1998). As a result, many have begun to view their charge differently; rather than an exercise of conducting research for research’s sake, they have begun to view research as a purposeful enterprise that can help inform current professional practice. This shift in thinking has led to the drive that some feel to make the most of existing research studies, not only to manage the information and maximize the cost effectiveness, but also to show that change efforts are having an effect.

Traditional literature reviews have not been as effective at using findings as many would have hoped. Such research reviews have been criticized for a number of reasons, including their lack of precision, propensity for subjectivity and inherent biases. The task of conducting a good literature review indeed is fraught with challenges, as primary studies draw upon different methodological traditions, produce complicated findings and exist en masse (Cooper, 1998; Whittemore, 2005). These factors have led researchers to search for something more: a better approach for making sense of existing research studies. Qualitative research synthesis is an approach that can help accomplish that goal.

Due to the relative newness of qualitative research synthesis, as well as the questions and criticisms that synthesists may encounter, it is appropriate and important to describe the approach as well as to make a case for it. Synthesists also may find it useful to acknowledge the method’s potential pitfalls, while indicating how they have avoided them. In this chapter, we provide an overview of qualitative research synthesis. We further explore what we believe are some of the most essential arguments for the method. Finally, we identify the criticisms that we have encountered most often, providing what we believe are appropriate counterpoints.

Qualitative research synthesis

At its most fundamental level, qualitative research synthesis is an approach that uses qualitative methods to analyse, synthesize and interpret the results from qualitative studies. In practice, synthesists seek to answer a specific research question through combining qualitative studies that use thick description and that are located in broadly the same tradition, in order to make sense of themes and issues across the particular data set. Qualitative research synthesis is methodologically-grounded and rigorous. It requires bringing out the qualities of meaning at a level higher from existing qualitative studies by combining them into a new whole.

In a qualitative research synthesis, synthesists undertake several specific tasks. While we describe these in more detail in Chapter 2 as well as in Part 2 of this book, here we outline the primary processes in Figure 1.1.

The process of qualitative research synthesis, while it may be described and predicted in linear terms as in Figure 1.1, is an iterative one. The search and selection phase, for example, involves instances in which the inclusion and exclusion criteria must be refined due to the articles identified, and the review of articles must be restarted. The three primary phases of analysis include 1) summarizing findings across studies and identifying which of those findings are clear and supported; 2) comparing and aggregating these findings; and 3) interpreting findings in relation to core themes that emerge across studies. Analysis requires accounting for interpretations in the original studies, which by nature demands reflexivity. The recommendations should relate to the interpretive narrative, so writing these two sections necessitates recursive activity.

Top ten arguments for using the approach

Qualitative research synthesis is valuable simply since it determines what the results of several studies, when viewed together, reveal. It is also important for the methodological contributions it makes to social science research. There also are several

Figure 1.1 Process of qualitative research synthesis.

specific arguments for using it as a research approach that goes beyond these two general attributes. Here we outline the ten we have found to be most useful.

1. Qualitative research synthesis can help contain the information explosion

Qualitative research has enjoyed a surge in popularity during the past few decades. Thousands of qualitative studies have been published in the practice professions, including nursing, medicine, business, and education in particular. This rise in the number of qualitative research studies marks an information explosion in social science research. The challenge for users is to digest and make sense of the information relevant to them. Yet mass information such as this arguably becomes unusable for many readers, researchers, practitioners and policy makers. The result can be an information overload.

Synthesizing existing information, through approaches such as qualitative research synthesis, provides a way to combine knowledge. Through qualitative research synthesis, large amounts of information are aggregated and then interpreted. The result is a research report that presents a comprehensive view of knowledge contained in multiple studies. Qualitative research synthesis then allows researchers not only to summarize an existing body of knowledge but also to discover meaning in it. Thus, the information explosion around a given topic is in some ways contained, and knowledge is rendered more comprehensible to others.

2. Qualitative research synthesis helps manage the information explosion

Related to the notion of containing the information explosion is the attending idea that it is important to manage this information as well. Due to the sheer number of studies and complications with searching, findings from original research often are lost in the data shuffle. Further, existing database management of research studies can be difficult to use, and frequently require the researcher to divine a mysterious combination of keywords, descriptors and identifiers to yield relevant research studies on a given topic. Differences in terminology in different countries (for example, staff versus faculty, as in the UK and US respectively) further complicate the search process. Hand-searching bibliographies of articles in relevant journals may help but still may not produce exhaustive results, since researchers often miss related studies.

Qualitative research synthesis offers one avenue for organizing the information that researchers have generated. It can yield research reports using studies clustered around a given topic. Synthesizing existing qualitative studies thus begins important steps in categorizing and systematizing information so that it is more readily searchable and usable. The methodology thus can provide an additional layer of filtering that can draw attention to studies that might otherwise remain obscured.

3. Qualitative research synthesis helps address the problem of knowledge fragmentation

The trend in the social sciences has been toward increased specialization. Within disciplines and fields, many new subfields have emerged. Within those subfields, many speciality areas have developed. The result is that researchers tend to identify with others in their own speciality areas and at times demonstrate little awareness of work similar to theirs that emerges from other areas. Primary research, then, often is done piecemeal, with little knowledge or acknowledgment of related work. Knowledge thus becomes fragmented and isolated. Even early proponents of qualitative methodology were worried that individual studies would become ‘little islands’ unto themselves, never to be linked or revisited (Glaser and Strauss, 1971: 181).

Qualitative research synthesis offers a potential solution to the problem. It is a form of qualitative research that allows for the linking of concepts across studies (Noblit and Hare, 1988). Through this approach, studies are linked based upon theories, methods and results. It requires the connecting of studies in a way that helps alleviate the issue of fragmentation of knowledge and instead seeks to build a comprehensible knowledge base. Qualitative research synthesis also helps to resolve conflicting reports of evidence (Whittemore, 2005), which helps build a research body. Finally, through qualitative research synthesis, studies can be linked across time, and in this way longitudinal study becomes more of a realistic possibility in qualitative research (Booth, 2006). Such study also helps to address the issue of fragmentation by providing a consistent chronology, which in many ways can reveal the evolution of knowledge that might otherwise appear disjointed.

4. The approach helps to identify gaps and omissions in a given body of research or within a single article

Researchers often seek to develop a ‘line’ of research. The notion is that moving forward incrementally and in a single direction is the best way to advance knowledge. However, as different researchers move along different lines, gaps between the lines begin to occur. Qualitative research synthesis is one way to start to view individual lines of research as connected lines, and thus to begin to develop a web of knowledge. This approach also can make the gaps between the lines more apparent, and thus can illustrate the kinds of studies that are needed to bridge those gaps.

In addition, researchers can tend to short-hand methodology sections, assuming that readers understand a given context or even research design, which may or may not be the case, so methodological gaps can be apparent within a given study. One of the primary features of qualitative research synthesis is that it requires synthesists to conduct a critical appraisal of each study around a given topic. The appraisal involves an evaluation of ‘fit’ based upon both applicability and quality. As synthesists makes decisions about inclusion and exclusion of studies, mistakes or omissions in existing articles become much clearer. Synthesists then can provide critical interpretations of strengths and limitations not only of individual studies but also of the aggregated view of them, thereby changing and potentially advancing the field.

5. Qualitative research synthesis provides a different perspective on questions addressed through quantitative approaches

Many meta-analytic studies have been conducted over the past decades that have extended knowledge in several ways. Quantitative researchers who have conducted these studies have done so under the guiding assumption that there is a body of knowledge that has been collected and amassed that can inform thinking collectively. These studies necessarily are directed by what is available in the literature. The questions meta-analytic researchers tend to ask then generally are derivative of the questions asked by the primary researchers.

Like meta-analytic researchers, synthesists generally derive their questions from those that exist in the literature. By examining different questions and combining different sets of evidence, synthesists can help provide even greater illumination of a topic, which may complement what quantitative meta-analysis has revealed. Thus, ‘is anxiety management an effective way of replacing alcohol as a coping strategy in clients with dependency problems?’ might best be addressed through a systematic review of quantitative evidence. However, ‘how may practitioners help clients deal with the effects of sudden and traumatic disability on their occupational behaviour?’ could be answered by reviewing qualitative studies of the experiences of disabled people as they deal with their changing life circumstances, thus investigating a topic through a different lens. As another example, if a quantitative meta-analysis investigated the question of whether students learn as effectively in an online environment as they do in a face-to-face situation, the researcher might be able to answer affirmatively or negatively, based upon what existing studies show. A qualitative research synthesis would begin with a different question, such as how students learn in an online environment. The findings of such a synthesis would involve a range of information such as approaches to learning, engagement with others and study skills. Thus the two approaches taken together could provide powerful information to staff wishing to operate online (or arguing against it) as well as to policy makers issuing guidelines for online learning.

6. Qualitative research synthesis provides ways to advance theory

As we have noted above, there are many disadvantages linked to the fact that primary qualitative research is done by way of disconnected studies that do not allow for the accumulation of knowledge. One of the primary disadvantages is that new theories rarely are developed or tested. It is difficul...