Richard - meta-analysis applies to quantitative approaches - and 'meta-synthesis' to qualitative approaches. The principles are similar, to a certain degree, in that they are both forms of a type of quantification centred on finding the most common outcome.

Thanks Dean. I was thinking in line of meta-analysis being used in determining the overall quality of quantitative researches (e.g. statistical power etc.) because I would want to conduct a study to determine the overall quality of theses and dissertations in our school.... and I found out that most theses and dissertations that we have here are qualitative in nature.

Hi Richard - that does help to clarify. However, I can't see how a power statistic could be applied. I like the thinking behind it - especially to help counter the paradigm tension and hierarchy between quantitative and qualitative approaches and, who knows, add all the small sample sizes between a number of qualitative studies and you might have enough to think of a power analysis. However, at the end of the day, it's still an alien concept for those into qualitative approaches.

Hi Dean... I understand. I think what I am after is some kind of an evaluation framework in which to evaluate qualitative researches (aggregates)... that is why I borrowed the concept of meta-analysis :D

Yes, similar method can be applied for qualitative research. We call it meta-syntheses. We generate evidences of feasibility, applicability, meaningfulness and effectiveness (FAME). The calculation of effect sizes may give us information on effectiveness, but not on meaningfulness. For such information we need qualitative syntheses. Therefore, if we want to generate an evidence on feasibility, applicability, meaningfulness and effectiveness, we have to have both meta syntheses and meta analyses. Anyone interested in how hierarchy of evidences are generated from qualitative and quantitative researches can consult Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), the international leader of evidence based health care practice.

I agree with Dean and Garumma, Richard. It seems that you may wish to develop your own rubric for assessing the quality of the qualitative studies, based on the criteria you deem important for your synthesis and analysis. I think that, if I were trying to evaluate the quality of dissertations, I would establish a rubric that addresses whether (and how well) the studies included the various aspects of a "good" qualitative study, then delve deeper to findings to group similar topics to generate themes of findings (depending upon your purposes for conducting the evaluation/analysis). Some thematic synthesis probably would be involved here. Build yourself a matrix from which to work to make it easier to keep track of what was done and how and what he/she found. This may be a useful tool for determining areas of weakness in teaching qualitative methods as well as determining what has been done, how well, and what findings were generated.

Great input everyone, Thanks much. :D

Thanks very much Stephen. I will definitely check these things out.

Hi Richard, qualitative synthesis methods have been developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and have been part of their review methodology for many years. Critical appraisal tools are available and a meta-aggregation function is included in their analysis software. If you're interested in learning more, there are 2 JBI centres in the Philippines that may be able to assist you: UST Hospital Department of Anesthesiology, and The Center for Health Research and Movement Science  in Manila.

Thank you Sonia. I will also check it out.