Dear Celso, it means that ethnographic work can be better understood, summarized and further developed if previous empirical findings are combined, set against one another or connected. Translation is the process, and its foundation is theoretical and contextual, as meta-analysis is based on the conceptual, contextual and textual analysis of fieldwork research. Best wishes, João Pedro  

Please let me know if this reference and site are helpful to you:

A meta-ethnography of patients’ experience of chronic non-malignant musculoskeletal pain.

Chapter 3 on Methods if freely downloadable at the following site:

site: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK262996/ 

Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 1.12.

Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, et al.

Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2013 Nov.

Chapter 3 Methods

There are various methods for synthesising qualitative research.27–30 Studies range from those aiming to describe qualitative findings to those that aim to be more interpretive and generate theory. As qualitative synthesis generally aims to move beyond description,31 it may be more useful to see these two approaches as two poles on a continuum. Meta-ethnography is an interpretive form of knowledge synthesis, proposed by Noblit and Hare,20 that aims to develop new conceptual understandings. As we aimed to produce a conceptual synthesis of qualitative findings related to chronic non-malignant MSK pain, we chose to use meta-ethnography as our method of qualitative synthesis. Some authors argue that meta-ethnography is more suited for synthesising a small number of studies.23,32 Reviews of published qualitative syntheses show that, in the majority of syntheses using meta-ethnographic methods, the number of studies included ranges from 3 to 44. 25,28,32 There are only a very small number of meta-ethnographic syntheses that include a larger number of studies than this.25,28 However, we knew that we were likely to find a large number of relevant studies and aimed to see if meta-ethnography could be used to synthesise when there is a large body of qualitative research.

Meta-ethnography has been successfully used to synthesise qualitative studies in health care. In a recent Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report evaluating meta-ethnography, Campbell and colleagues28 identified 41 qualitative syntheses. Six of these explicitly employed meta-ethnography to synthesise findings and a further 16 described their method as meta-ethnographic. Other reviews of qualitative syntheses suggest that the number is much larger than this and increasing dramatically.25,32 For example, Hannes and colleagues32 demonstrated that the number of qualitative syntheses in 2008 had doubled within 4 years, and that the most commonly used method of synthesis is meta-ethnography. We searched the medical databases [Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index (BNI) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)] using the terms meta AND ethnography (in title and abstract) and found 19 additional health-care studies published between 2009 and 2012 that explicitly used meta-ethnography.24,33–50 This limited search may underestimate the number of qualitative syntheses now using meta-ethnography, but it seems clear that a growing number of researchers are using meta-ethnography to synthesise qualitative findings. Noblit and Hare20 propose seven stages to a meta-ethnography synthesis, which take the researcher from formulating a research idea to expressing the findings of research (Figure 1). These stages are not discrete but form part of an iterative research process.

FIGURE 1

Seven stages of Noblit and Hare’s meta-ethnography.

Go to:

1. Getting started

This stage of the research involves ‘finding something that is worthy of the synthesis effort’ (p. 27).20 The decision to develop a conceptual synthesis of patients’ experience of chronic non-malignant MSK pain was an iterative process that was sparked at the British Pain Society Annual General Meeting in 2009 when two of the research team (FT and KS) first met. From here we approached other members of the team with a specific interest and expertise in chronic pain, qualitative research and research synthesis (Box 1). We began with informal meetings and telephone discussions, which culminated in a successful application to fund the project. The study protocol is provided in Appendix 1.

BOX 1

Background of co-applicants FT has a master’s degree in Archaeology and Anthropology and is also a qualified physiotherapist with an interest in chronic pain management. She has expertise in qualitative health research and methodology.

The development of this meta-ethnography was both iterative and collaborative. Team members felt free to agree, disagree or change their mind within the safety of the group. The aim of considering alternative views within a team is not necessarily to agree on an interpretation but rather to enter into a dialectic process whereby our ideas are challenged and modified. This can lead to greater conceptual insight by challenging the boundaries of our own interpretations, just as a single word from another person can jog our memory or spark off insight when we had not expected it.

Throughout the project the project team met monthly either face-to-face or in Skype™ meetings (Skype Ltd Rives de Clausen, Luxembourg). We also met regularly with an advisory group that included two patient representatives and three NHS clinicians with experience in pain management (Box 2). The terms of reference for the advisory group are shown in Box 3.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur