Meta-Ethnography

Qualitative Syntheses: Various Methods

Synthesizing qualitative literature can be challenging, but researchers have developed a variety of methods to combine results from individual qualitative studies. These methods can be classified into three types: numeric syntheses, narrative syntheses, and interpretive syntheses. Both numeric and narrative syntheses stem from the postpositivist paradigm. Unlike the positivist paradigm, the postpositivist paradigm recognizes that knowledge is not necessarily rooted in unquestionable truths. Both numeric and narrative syntheses also aim to aggregate results from studies independently of their original context. Interpretive syntheses emanate from the interpretivist paradigm (an approach that recognizes and even values the subjective perspectives researchers bring to bear on inquiries) and aim to achieve a new conceptual or theoretical understanding of a particular phenomenon while holding true to each study’s original context. Among all methods of qualitative interpretive syntheses, the meta-ethnography method is the most well described and most often applied.

Meta-Ethnography Method: Development and Current State

This interpretive synthesis method was developed and described in the late 1980s by George W. Noblit and R. Dwight Hare, both ethnographers in the field of education research. Their method is often compared to the well-known quantitative synthesis method of meta-analysis. However, the sole similarity between the two relates to the fact that they both operate with a body of empirical studies. Caution against further comparison is yet required due to differences in the paradigms underlying both methods. The analogy can help quantitative researchers or novice qualitative researchers understand the aim of the meta-ethnography method.

The meta-ethnography method was developed after failing to synthesize qualitative studies by aggregating results from individual studies. Noblit and Hare concluded that simply aggregating results neglected the original context of each individual study and decided it would be best to develop a method that allows staying true to context. Stephen Turner’s concept of translation proposed in his theory of social explanation offered an interesting approach. In this case, translations refer to an inductive process in which one understands something by comparing it to what one already knows or has experienced. Translations therefore differ from one person to another. Applied to synthesizing qualitative studies, Turner’s stipulations imply that a researcher must translate studies into one another by comparing their findings (e.g., study 1 is similar to study 2 in that . . . , but is different because . . . ). The comparison being inductive, translations will depend on the researchers’ personal experiences. However, to enhance the epistemological bases of the method, an effort has been made to make these translations less inductive. In brief, Noblit and [Page 1013]Hare successfully developed a method for synthesizing qualitative studies that would bring about a new interpretation of results from all studies, moving away from the practice of simply aggregating results.

...