Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography

TLDR

Synthesising qualitative research involves navigating difficult practical issues. The authors aim to analyse how practical action and reasoning shape meta‑ethnography, drawing on their experience of three studies and reviewing central methods reported in the literature. They examine key practices—particularly reading and conceptual innovation—by reflecting on their own meta‑ethnographic work and the methods reported in existing studies. They conclude that meta‑ethnography requires active reading, recognition of multiplicity, realistic conceptual innovation, and collaborative work.

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.