Critiquing the contested nature of aggregation in qualitative evidence synthesis: an examination of dominant views on interpretivism.
Date
2011
Authors
Lockwood, Craig
Editors
Advisors
Pearson, Alan
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Thesis
Citation
Statement of Responsibility
Conference Name
Abstract
This dissertation examines and explores the assumptions and debates associated with qualitative synthesis within the health sciences. My particular area of interest is the complexities arising from various techniques of qualitative synthesis currently emerging in the field of qualitative systematic review. More specifically, in this study I sought to assess the
impact of the choice of theoretical constructs, methodological frameworks or methods on the nature of the findings when undertaking a qualitative synthesis. My intention was to examine
the debates and conjecture surrounding claims made in relation to meta ethnography and meta aggregation as underpinning approaches to the systematic review of qualitative evidence, as
these have attracted interest and polarised the opinions made of their proponents. In order to achieve this a multi phase study was undertaken, where phase one included the identification of a high quality, published meta ethnographic review and the conduct of a comparator meta aggregative review. Phase two consisted of a comparison between the two reviews, with each phase necessarily consisting of sections that worked to clarify the steps and stages taken in the conduct and reporting of the research that formed the basis of this thesis. The primary results of interest from this process were not the findings of the meta ethnographic review compared with the meta aggregative review, but the subsequent analysis of where and how differences originated. Interpretivism is the catch phrase of meta ethnography, yet it is by no means clear what is meant either by the originators; or by subsequent reviewers who have used the methodology but not explicated its philosophic foundations. Interpretivism is not a unified theory, it is instead a broad church; inclusive of many philosophical perspectives, specifically hermeneutics, phenomenology and symbolic interactionism. The particular claims to interpretivism for ethnographic reviews was examined and found to be a superficial and inadequate representation of the methodology. Specifically, hermeneutic phenomenology has been found to be ontologically and epistemologically congruent with the methodology and methods of meta ethnography. It also became evident that the methods-centric focus of meta aggregation has limited wider understanding of the methodology, leading to an incorrect association with integration. This study maintains that the interpretive foundations of aggregative synthesis are found in Husserlian Transcendental Phenomenology. This study suggests that the approach and purpose are the first two key points of decisionmaking. Therefore, reviewers interested in undertaking qualitative synthesis should first consider what approach is a good fit with their purposes before deciding upon a methodology. Within the ‘interpretive philosophic’ perspective, the two core philosophies [of hermeneutic phenomenology (with fusion of horizons), and transcendental phenomenology] are where we must look to understand both the differences between meta aggregation and meta ethnography and the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
School/Discipline
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Dissertation Note
Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2011
Provenance
Copyright material removed from digital thesis. See print copy in University of Adelaide Library for full text.