How qualitative (or interpretive or critical) is qualitative synthesis and what we can do about this?
Thanks to everyone who attended the seminar on ‘How qualitative (or interpretive or critical) is qualitative synthesis’, it was a huge success.
And you can watch ‘SCPHRP meets George’ here
George W. Noblit is the Joseph R. Neikirk Distinguished Professor of Sociology of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He, with Dwight Hare, developed meta-ethnography. He had occasionally written more about it and has consulted on several large qualitative synthesis projects. He has a forthcoming article on the meta-ethnography of autoethnographies as well as a book in process, The cultural construction of identity: Metaethnographies and theorizing. In truth, however, he more a practicing qualitative researcher whose work has won several awards. He specializes in the study of racialization and class formation from a decidedly critical lens. He is the editor/author of 18 books.
His most recent book, Is Education, equity and economy: Crafting a new intersection for Springer. He edits The Urban Review and two book series. Most recently he is the founding editor of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education which he hopes will not deter Scottish separatists from attending his presentation.
Take 5 Minutes… To Update Your Knowledge on Synthesising Qualitative Studies
Synthesising Qualitative Studies: There is growing consensus that the needs, preferences and experiences of patients and the public should be taken into account in developing and evaluating new interventions. One way of ensuring that the views and experiences of the public can be incorporated into research, policy and practice is through identifying and bringing together (synthesising) the relevant research evidence from individual qualitative studies.
While the results from one qualitative study may be difficult to generalise, a syntheses of all the relevant qualitative studies can identify a range of common themes as well as any divergent views. Unlike methods for the synthesis of intervention studies (e.g. Cochrane reviews) there is no single method to the identification and synthesis of health (-related) qualitative research.
Four methods have been most widely used and are described briefly below: Meta-ethnography is currently the most commonly used method . Meta-ethnography involves seven steps which, by bringing together findings from individual interpretive accounts, produces a new interpretation of the data. It involves both induction and interpretation, and thus follows a similar approach to the methods of qualitative data analysis used in the studies being synthesised. Thematic synthesis is often (but not exclusively) used for analysing qualitative data alongside quantitative data synthesis. Initially developed by researchers from the EPPI-Centre, it addresses questions around “what works,” primarily in relation to health promotion interventions. This method develops analytical themes through descriptive synthesis and finding of explanations relevant to a particular review question. Meta-study involves critical interpretation of existing qualitative research. Before synthesis can take place and a new interpretation obtained, three analytical phases are completed—”meta-theory, meta-method, and meta-data analysis”. These phases, equating to the analysis of theory, analysis of methods, and the analysis of findings , can be conducted concurrently to “provide a unique angle of vision from which to deconstruct and interpret” a body of qualitative literature. Once these analytical processes have been completed, meta-synthesis “brings back together ideas that have been taken apart,” creating a new interpretation of the phenomenon under investigation Meta-summary uses “quantitatively oriented aggregation of qualitative findings that are themselves topical or thematic summaries or surveys of data”. Such summaries can be conducted on their own, or in association with more traditional qualitative synthesis, and can include qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Example: The views of young people in the UK about obesity, body size, shape and weight: a systematic review.
This systematic review aimed to examine recent UK research findings where young people aged from 12-18 provided views about their own body sizes or about the body sizes of others.
A total of 30 studies were included. Three main themes were identified:
General perceptions about different body sizes and society’s responses to them (It’s on your conscience all the time);
Overweight young people’s beliefs about influences on size and experiences related to their size (If I had the choice, I wouldn’t be this size); and
Overweight young people’s experiences of trying to lose and maintain weight and their suggestions for action (Make sure, even when it’s hard, you’ve got people there).
Young people discussed larger body sizes in overwhelmingly social terms. An overweight body size was to be avoided for social, rather than health reasons. Young women and men identified ideals consistently for their own bodies that were very different for the two sexes.
Implications for intervention/service development and delivery: The findings suggest that there is a need for those who develop weight reduction initiatives to recognise the physical, psychological and social constraints faced by young participants; and to consider how they can reduce stigma
Implications for policy: To consider the full range of factors that contribute to obesity, especially those that are social or environmental in nature, and provide opportunities for young people to engage in positive healthy behaviours , and to involve diverse groups of children in the development and evaluation of initiatives. Related: Ruth Jepson recently ran a two day event on synthesising qualitative research for the Scottish Graduate School of Social Science.
Hello and welcome to our October bulletin. Bringing you our usual mix of news, publications, project updates and more. SCPHRP is on the move again! We have moved offices for the second in six months and hope we can now settle for a while. Our address is 9 Hope Park Square Edinburgh, EH8 9NW It […]
Hello and welcome to our September bulletin. Bringing you our usual mix of news, publications, project updates and more. We’d like to extend a warm welcome to all new and existing students who joined us at the University of Edinburgh this month! Autumn is now upon us and September has been a busy month welcoming students […]
Many of you may know that SCPHRP was funded for ten years until June 2018 by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Chief Scientist Office (CSO). After five years based within the Usher Institute, we are delighted to announce that SCPHRP will continue to operate as a research centre within The University of Edinburgh at the School of Health […]