Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review

Greenhalgh, Trisha; Robert, Glenn; Macfarlane, Fraser; Bate, Paul; Kyriakidou, Olivia; Peacock, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001

Cited by 673 publications

(699 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

654

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[11][12][13] The form consisted of the following fields: 1) Is this paper relevant to our research questions and worthy of further consideration? 2) How does this paper fit into our taxonomy?…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The storied mind: A meta-narrative review exploring the capacity of stories to foster humanism in health care

Rose

Chakraborty

Mason-Lai

et al. 2015

JHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Healthcare organizations are increasingly engaging the voice of patients and families through storytelling initiatives in hopes that this will yield compassionate and humanistic outcomes. To date, very little research is available that directly guides and justifies storytelling initiatives as a mechanism for promoting humanistic culture shifts in healthcare. This review aimed to uncover diverse research and evidence on how storytelling can be utilized to promote humanistic shifts in healthcare organizations. Methods: A meta-narrative review and analysis was undertaken including qualitative, quantitative, theoretical, and conceptual papers. Searches were restricted to English Language journals, and no time frame restrictions were made. A literature assessment form was created to guide the review using a consistent taxonomy to appraise each paper. Analysis was done in two-stages: firstly, identifying emergent themes within each research discipline; secondly, comparing and contrasting themes from the different disciplines. Results: A total of 115 papers were identified for review resulting from the literature review protocol. Eighty-three papers were included in the final review: 48 papers from Healthcare/Medicine combined, 28 from Business, 14 from Education, 5 from Organizational Development and 19 from Humanities (inclusive of Psychology and Communications). There were three key findings: 1) Storytelling promotes sense-making while also perpetuating bias; 2) Stories are uniquely primed to elicit empathy and compassion; 3) Story listening and how stories are interacted with by the listener are key considerations for organizations aiming to shift culture. Conclusions: This review solidifies storytelling as a mechanism suited to furthering humanistic practices in healthcare while contributing new knowledge in support of developing policies, strategies and research initiatives that account for how stories are understood and the processes that encourage reflection and interaction by listeners.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The storied mind: A meta-narrative review exploring the capacity of stories to foster humanism in health care

Rose

Chakraborty

Mason-Lai

et al. 2015

JHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It presupposes the dispassionate, instrumental and universal “view from nowhere” that has long defined the scientific method 38. When we speak of interpretation, we refer to an analysis that is necessarily perspectival, with the interpreter transparently positioned in order that the reader can understand why this particular perspective, selection process and interpretive methodology was selected in relation to the question at hand 14, 17, 29, 37, 39. Systematic and transparent reflection upon and sharing of such aspects of the research process adds to the scientific quality of interpretive research.…”

Section: Systematic or Narrative Or Systematic And Narrative?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

Greenhalgh

Thorne

Malterud

2018

Eur J Clin Investigation

Self Cite

537

437

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is important given the availability of alternatives including meta-narrative approaches (e.g. Greenhalgh et al, 2005), critical appraisals (e.g. Hill & Spittlehouse, 2003) and realist reviews (e.g.…”

Section: Reasons For Using Systematic Review Methodsologymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Experience of Conducting a Systematic Review in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology

Rojon

McDowall

Saunders

2011

Journal of Personnel Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic Review methodology (SRm) is an increasingly popular choice for literature reviews in the Social Sciences. Although, compared to traditional narrative reviews SRm appears timeconsuming and laborious, transparency and replicability of the methodology is argued to facilitate greater clarity of review. Nevertheless, researchers in Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology have yet to embrace this methodology. Drawing on experience from conducting a Systematic Review (SR) of individual workplace performance we explore the premise: The advantages of SRm to IWO Psychology researchers outweigh the disadvantages. We offer observations, insights and potential solutions to challenges faced during the reviewing process, concluding that SRm is worthwhile for IWO Psychology researchers.

show abstract

Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review

Cited by 673 publications

References 23 publications

The storied mind: A meta-narrative review exploring the capacity of stories to foster humanism in health care

The storied mind: A meta-narrative review exploring the capacity of stories to foster humanism in health care

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

On the Experience of Conducting a Systematic Review in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About