Informed decisions about sampling are critical to improving the quality of research synthesis. Even though several qualitative research synthesists have recommended purposeful sampling for synthesizing qualitative research, the published literature holds sparse discussion on how different strategies for purposeful sampling may be applied to a research synthesis. In primary research, Patton is frequently cited as an authority on the topic of purposeful sampling. In Patton's original texts that are referred to in this article, Patton does not make any suggestion of using purposeful sampling for research synthesis. This article makes a unique contribution to the literature by examining the adaptability of each of Patton's 16 purposeful sampling strategies to the process of qualitative research synthesis. It illuminates how different purposeful sampling strategies might be particularly suited to constructing multi-perspectival, emancipatory, participatory and deconstructive interpretations of published research.
The dominant literature on research synthesis methods has positivist and neopositivist origins. In recent years, the landscape of research synthesis methods has changed rapidly to become inclusive. This article highlights methodologically inclusive advancements in research synthesis methods. Attention is drawn to insights from interpretive, critical, and participatory traditions for enhancing trustworthiness, utility, and/or emancipatory potential for research syntheses. Also noted is a paucity of the literature that builds connections between methodologically diverse segments of the literature on research synthesis methods. Salient features of a methodologically inclusive research synthesis (MIRS) framework are described. The MIRS framework has been conceptualized by distilling and synthesizing ideas, theories, and strategies from the extensive literatures on research synthesis methods and primary research methods. Rather than prescribe how a research synthesis should be conducted or evaluated, this article attempts to open spaces, raise questions, explore possibilities, and contest taken-for-granted practices.Keywords: qualitative research, research methodology, research utilization, research synthesis.Research syntheses play an important role in disseminating research knowledge and in shaping further research, policy, practice, and public perception. Commendable efforts have been made to enhance rigor in research syntheses. However, the literature on research synthesis methods from interpretive, participatory, and critical perspectives is relatively sparse and often not discussed within the dominant literature on meta-analysis. Furthermore, there is a paucity of literature that builds connections between these different parts of the literature on research synthesis methods.In this article, we highlight advancements in research synthesis from a methodologically inclusive perspective. We emphasize expanding possibilities within research syntheses, rather than report the relative popularity of contemporary research synthesis methods. Then, we describe the salient features of a MIRS at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on March 15, 2015 http://rer.aera.net Downloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on March 15, 2015 http://rer.aera.net Downloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN LIBRARY on March 15, 2015 http://rer.aera.net Downloaded from Glass (1976) coined the term meta-analysis to refer to the process of statistical integration of primary research findings. 1 To reduce unstated subjectivity in a synthesis, meta-analysts: formulate clear hypotheses with operational and conceptual definitions of key constructs; state explicit criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of primary research; conduct explicit and comprehensive searches for relevant studies; follow explicit procedures for extracting relevant information from each study; convert summaries of individual studies to appropriate effect sizes; attach appropriate weights to individual effect sizes, according to their sample sizes; statistically ...
Ethical considerations of conducting systematic reviews in educational research are not typically discussed explicitly. As an illustration, 'ethics' is not listed as a term in the index of the second edition of 'An Introduction to Systematic Reviews' (Gough et al. 2017). This chapter draws from my earlier in-depth discussion of this topic in the Qualitative Research Journal (Suri 2008) along with more recent publications by colleagues in the field of research ethics and methods of research synthesis. Unlike primary researchers, systematic reviewers do not collect deeply personal, sensitive or confidential information from participants. Systematic reviewers use publicly accessible documents as evidence and are seldom required to seek an institutional ethics approval before commencing a systematic review. Institutional Review Boards for ethical conduct of research do not typically include guidelines for systematic reviews. Nonetheless, in the past four decades systematic reviews have evolved to become more methodologically inclusive and play a powerful role in influencing policy, practice, further research and public perception. Hence, ethical considerations of how interests of different stakeholders are represented in a research review have become critical (Franklin 1999; Hammersley 2003; Harlen and Crick 2004; Popkewitz 1999). Educational researchers often draw upon the philosophical traditions of consequentialism, deontology or virtue ethics to situate their ethical decisionmaking. Consequentialism or utilitarianism focuses on maximising benefit and minimising harm by undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of potential positive
The purpose of research synthesis is to produce new knowledge by making explicit connections and tensions between individual study reports that were not visible before. Every effort of synthesizing research is inevitably premised on certain epistemological assumptions. It is crucial that research synthesists reflect critically on how their epistemological positioning enables them to pursue certain purposes while preventing them from pursuing other purposes. The literature on research synthesis methods is dominated by publications premised on positivist assumptions. The rhetoric of systematic reviews, best-evidence synthesis and What Works Clearinghouse privileges syntheses with positivist orientations. Contesting the hegemony of positivist research syntheses, this paper makes a case for research syntheses that are informed by diverse epistemological orientations. It illuminates how research syntheses with distinct epistemological orientations can serve complementary, equally worthwhile, purposes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.