Abstract
Synthesising qualitative research involves working through difficult practical issues. Drawing upon our collective experience of undertaking three meta-ethnographies, we consider the forms of work – the practical action and practical reasoning – comprising this kind of synthesis and the difference they make to a meta-ethnography. We detail the origins and aims of meta-ethnography, and present a review of existing meta-ethnographies with a specific focus on the methods the authors reported as central to the conduct of meta-ethnography. We consider the implications of these methods and the reason for the presence (and absence) of particular practices in reporting on meta-ethnographies. Drawing upon our own experiences of conducting meta-ethnographies we focus on the methods used in two key practices central to meta-ethnography: ‘reading’ and ‘conceptual innovation’. We conclude by discussing how the meta-ethnographic process requires active reading, a recognition of multiplicity, a realistic approach to conceptual innovation and, importantly, collaborative work.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 334-350 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Qualitative Research |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 5 Jun 2015 |
Keywords
- health services research
- meta-ethnography
- methods
- pragmatism
- qualitative research
- research synthesis
- review