Though both techniques share the same underlying principle-the desire to combine and merge information from individual studies-the aim of meta-analysis is to increase certainty in cause and effect relationships (Egger et al 1997). This interpretive approach also distinguishes QMS from its quantitative equivalent-meta-analysis. In QMS, the emphasis is placed on interpretation, specifically the interpretation of findings from a carefully selected collection of research studies (primary studies) in a chosen area of interest (Jensen and Allen 1996). Such a definition clearly differentiates QMS from the summary, description and critique of a standard literature review (Thorne et al 2004).
This parable vividly illustrates the essential nature of qualitative meta-synthesis (QMS) which has been defined as 'the bringing together of findings on a chosen theme, the results of which should, in conceptual terms, be greater than the sum of the parts' (Campbell et al 2003). Each makes valid and relevant claims in relation to the elephant but only when the findings of all contributors are combined does a clear image of the animal emerge (Ireland 1997). On feeling the trunk, one proclaims it to be rather like a snake: while another, on feeling the ear, explains it is more like a fan: yet another, upon touching the legs, describes the beast as tree-like, and so on. This article by Kenneth Finlayson and Annie Dixon attempts to clarify some of the more controversial issues and, by providing a set of guidelines, hopes to encourage novices to enter this stimulating environment with confidence and understandingĪn ancient Buddhist parable details the attempts of several blind men to describe an elephant. It is also saturated with a variety of unresolved philosophical, terminological and methodological discussions which may seem daunting to the novice researcher.
The emerging field of qualitative synthesis is an exciting area of research with the potential to influence policy and practice.
0 kommentar(er)
