Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography

Richard P Lee; Ruth Isla Hart; Rose M Watson; Tim Rapley

doi:10.1177/1468794114524221

Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography

Richard P Lee, Ruth Isla Hart, Rose M Watson, Tim Rapley

Health Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

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	https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114524221
Publication status	Published - 2014

Access to Document

10.1177/1468794114524221

Cite this

@article{a88a22694a7647f597fed7053e674000,

title = "Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography",

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: {\textquoteleft}reading{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}conceptual innovation{\textquoteright}. 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.",

author = "Lee, {Richard P} and Hart, {Ruth Isla} and Watson, {Rose M} and Tim Rapley",

year = "2014",

doi = "10.1177/1468794114524221",

language = "English",

volume = "15",

pages = "334--350",

journal = "Qualitative Research",

issn = "1468-7941",

publisher = "SAGE",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography

AU - Lee, Richard P

AU - Hart, Ruth Isla

AU - Watson, Rose M

AU - Rapley, Tim

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/24/1468794114524221.full.pdf+html

U2 - 10.1177/1468794114524221

DO - 10.1177/1468794114524221

M3 - Article

SN - 1468-7941

VL - 15

SP - 334

EP - 350

JO - Qualitative Research

JF - Qualitative Research

IS - 3

ER -

Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this