Qualitative research is known to be context-dependent. If we synthesize qualitative studies (e.g. meta-ethnography, meta-aggregation, etc), are we not losing the contexts of those studies included? How do we go about maintaining the context of these studies that contribute to the explanation of the phenomenon under study?
This is a great question, there is certainly room for further investigation of this topic! I cant give you great references to support this response, but hopefully it stimulates some further thinking...
The findings of qualitative research are context dependent - the same question in a different context will probably produce a different answer as the experiences of individuals are within unique contexts. One approach in qualitative synthesis is to recognise that context comes WITH the findings from the included primary studies. In other words, without the specific context that the primary research was conducted within, we would not have those exact findings, and therefore the context is embedded within the findings.
Its really only part of an answer, and while true, what is lacking is the extent to which qualitative reviews inform readers of the context of the original research. And this gap is the one that needs more investigation. Those who study up on realist synthesis probably have a stronger argument for how context carries across, but reading published realist reveiws shows the clarity to which context is reported is also problematic in that methodology.
So, context is embedded in the primary qualitative study findings, but often poorly communicated in terms of the detail in systematic review results.
I certainly agree with Craig's answer to this.This question hints at the problem with much qualitative research undertaken under some of the more constructivist and interpretivist positions. Particularly those that deny any real causal and diachronic efficacy to external social structures. Too often the deeper power relations are overshadowed by a focus on the individual and their beliefs about the world. Therefore, we need to look beyond descriptions of experiences and phenomenological narratives and to the structures underlying these. This will allow us to build richer descriptions that bring forward the features of contexts rather than as backgrounds or envelope for empirical experience. Therefore we can discuss context as intimately intertwined and consequently as part of our programmes of meta-synthesis.
Although dealing with quantitative research, the following paper provides some useful alternative thinking.
Fleetwood, S., Brannan, M., OMahoney, J. and Vincent, S. (2017)
Meta-analysis: A critical realist critique and alternative. Human Relations,
70 (1). pp. 11-39.
Thanks,
Hamish
A point to consider could also be: Do we always need to preserve the context-specificity in qualitative meta analyses? Wouldn't the findings that cross over the contexts greatly enhance our understanding of the issue/phenomenon under study? Based on my own research on country stereotypes, I would propose that similar stereotypical perceptions across widely different contexts provide very valuable insights.
It is great questions like this one and the lack of clear answers to such questions that drive further research. Thank you Celso for the question asked.
My point of view from my social constructionist ontology is that the findings of a qualitative research approach are dependent on the following four dimensions that evolve dynamically with the progress of the research itself: 1) the researcher (she, he , them); 2) the phenomenon of the research; 3) the context of the phenomenon and 4) the literature relevant to the phenomenon and theories relevant to its understanding.
In any case in your research do not shy away from looking at phenomena the way they are presented to you by the actors in the phenomena.
Find more about my thinking in our methodological article:
Tomaz Schara, Richard Common, (2016) "Leadership and elite interviews: Researching the challenges of EU rail integration in a Single European Rail Area", International Journal of Public Leadership, Vol. 12 Issue: 1, pp.32-51, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-03-2016-0007
to be found at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJPL-03-2016-0007
I agree with Larissa Nikitina that an important goal of qualitative meta-analysis should be to look for patterns that occur across contexts. This does not mean that context will be irrelevant, but it should be more general than the specifics of any one study. For example, one might find that the collection of studies showed two different outcomes or pathways, or whatever, and that the occurrence of one or the other was context-dependent.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research