Content area
Full text
The dominant literature on research synthesis methods has positivist and neopositivist origins. In recent years, the landscape of research synthesis methods has changed rapidly to become inclusive. This article highlights methodologically inclusive advancements in research synthesis methods. Attention is drawn to insights from interpretive, critical, and participatory traditions for enhancing trustworthiness, utility, and/or emancipatory potential for research syntheses. Also noted is a paucity of the literature that builds connections between methodologically diverse segments of the literature on research synthesis methods. Salient features of a methodologically inclusive research synthesis (MIRS) framework are described. The MIRS framework has been conceptualized by distilling and synthesizing ideas, theories, and strategies from the extensive literatures on research synthesis methods and primary research methods. Rather than prescribe how a research synthesis should be conducted or evaluated, this article attempts to open spaces, raise questions, explore possibilities, and contest taken-for-granted practices.
KEYWORDS: qualitative research, research methodology, research utilization, research synthesis.
Research syntheses play an important role in disseminating research knowledge and in shaping further research, policy, practice, and public perception. Commendable efforts have been made to enhance rigor in research syntheses. However, the Uterature on research synthesis methods from interpretive, participatory, and critical perspectives is relatively sparse and often not discussed within the dominant literature on meta-analysis. Furthermore, there is a paucity of literature that builds connections between these different parts of the literature on research synthesis methods.
In this article, we highlight advancements in research synthesis from a methodologically inclusive perspective. We emphasize expanding possibilities within research syntheses, rather than report the relative popularity of contemporary research synthesis methods. Then, we describe the salient features of a MIRS framework, which has been conceptualized by distilling and synthesizing diverse ideas, theories, and strategies from the extensive bodies of literature on research synthesis methods and primary research methods.
Methodological Underpinnings
In this article, we subscribe to a complementarity diversity thesis, with the premise being that different paradigms exist and serve complementary purposes in educational research (Walker & Evers, 1999). Engaging with fallibilist pluralism (Schwandt, 2005), we try to stretch the conventional boundaries of research synthesis methods. Our goal is to contest the hegemony of meta-analytic methods by constructing a methodologically inclusive counternarrative about the advancements of research synthesis methods. As such, this...