元民族志的表现:在迷途丛林的边缘?

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Terese Elisabet Bondas
{"title":"元民族志的表现:在迷途丛林的边缘?","authors":"Terese Elisabet Bondas","doi":"10.1177/10497323251316841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since its origin in the ethnography of education by Noblit and Hare in 1988, meta-ethnography has been molded between its qualitative research heritage as an interpretative synthesizing method and an increasing influence from systematic reviews. The eMERGe reporting guidance was introduced in 2019 to help improve the reporting of meta-ethnographies; however, the impact of this is not yet fully known, and the trustworthiness of meta-ethnographies has been challenged. Therefore, the aim of this study is to illuminate representations of meta-ethnography in the method literature in relation to the original publication by Noblit and Hare in 1988 and overviews on qualitative synthesizing methods. This meta-method study is based on published methodological research that focuses on descriptions of meta-ethnography. Using an overarching metaphor of meta-ethnography being in limbo in the jungle of misguided paths, three representations are illuminated. Meta-ethnography seems to be removed from its qualitative interpretive original tradition due to the recent impact of systematic quantitative reviews. Researchers' uncritical use of references has created a terminological mismatch risking misunderstanding and distortion in descriptions and suggested implementation. To strengthen future research, an in-depth understanding of meta-ethnography, its assumptions, and its characteristics, an interpretive application is needed. In addition, maintaining a critical attitude to secondary method references that deviate from the original interpretative epistemology and implementation is also required.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":" ","pages":"10497323251316841"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Representations of Meta-Ethnography: In Limbo in the Jungle of Misguided Paths?\",\"authors\":\"Terese Elisabet Bondas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10497323251316841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Since its origin in the ethnography of education by Noblit and Hare in 1988, meta-ethnography has been molded between its qualitative research heritage as an interpretative synthesizing method and an increasing influence from systematic reviews. The eMERGe reporting guidance was introduced in 2019 to help improve the reporting of meta-ethnographies; however, the impact of this is not yet fully known, and the trustworthiness of meta-ethnographies has been challenged. Therefore, the aim of this study is to illuminate representations of meta-ethnography in the method literature in relation to the original publication by Noblit and Hare in 1988 and overviews on qualitative synthesizing methods. This meta-method study is based on published methodological research that focuses on descriptions of meta-ethnography. Using an overarching metaphor of meta-ethnography being in limbo in the jungle of misguided paths, three representations are illuminated. Meta-ethnography seems to be removed from its qualitative interpretive original tradition due to the recent impact of systematic quantitative reviews. Researchers' uncritical use of references has created a terminological mismatch risking misunderstanding and distortion in descriptions and suggested implementation. To strengthen future research, an in-depth understanding of meta-ethnography, its assumptions, and its characteristics, an interpretive application is needed. In addition, maintaining a critical attitude to secondary method references that deviate from the original interpretative epistemology and implementation is also required.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Health Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10497323251316841\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Health Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323251316841\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323251316841","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自从1988年Noblit和Hare的教育民族志起源以来,元民族志在其作为解释性综合方法的定性研究遗产和越来越多的系统评论影响之间形成。2019年推出了eMERGe报告指南,以帮助改进元人种志的报告;然而,这种影响尚未完全了解,并且元人种志的可信度受到了挑战。因此,本研究的目的是阐明元民族志在方法文献中的表现,并与Noblit和Hare于1988年发表的原始出版物相联系,并概述定性综合方法。这项元方法研究是基于已发表的方法研究,重点是元民族志的描述。使用元人种学的总体隐喻是在丛林的迷途中,三个代表被照亮。由于最近系统定量评论的影响,元民族志似乎从其定性解释的原始传统中消失了。研究人员对参考文献的不加批判的使用造成了术语的不匹配,有可能在描述和建议的实施中产生误解和扭曲。为了加强未来的研究,深入了解元民族志,它的假设和特征,需要一个解释性的应用。此外,还需要对偏离原始解释性认识论和实施的次要方法参考保持批判态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Representations of Meta-Ethnography: In Limbo in the Jungle of Misguided Paths?

Since its origin in the ethnography of education by Noblit and Hare in 1988, meta-ethnography has been molded between its qualitative research heritage as an interpretative synthesizing method and an increasing influence from systematic reviews. The eMERGe reporting guidance was introduced in 2019 to help improve the reporting of meta-ethnographies; however, the impact of this is not yet fully known, and the trustworthiness of meta-ethnographies has been challenged. Therefore, the aim of this study is to illuminate representations of meta-ethnography in the method literature in relation to the original publication by Noblit and Hare in 1988 and overviews on qualitative synthesizing methods. This meta-method study is based on published methodological research that focuses on descriptions of meta-ethnography. Using an overarching metaphor of meta-ethnography being in limbo in the jungle of misguided paths, three representations are illuminated. Meta-ethnography seems to be removed from its qualitative interpretive original tradition due to the recent impact of systematic quantitative reviews. Researchers' uncritical use of references has created a terminological mismatch risking misunderstanding and distortion in descriptions and suggested implementation. To strengthen future research, an in-depth understanding of meta-ethnography, its assumptions, and its characteristics, an interpretive application is needed. In addition, maintaining a critical attitude to secondary method references that deviate from the original interpretative epistemology and implementation is also required.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信