The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base David Denyer and David Tranfield
Using qualitative research synthesis 213
Centre for Management Knowledge and Strategic Change, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the qualitative synthesis and use of existing management research to inform management practice. Design/methodology/approach – Three methods of qualitative synthesis, each with contrasting methodologies, are presented and their potential contribution in the management field explored. Findings – Professional practice could be improved if practitioners had better access to the products of a large body of management research. Evidence-based reviews of the literature in the management field could form a crucial bridge between research and practice. The task of reviewing and synthesising qualitative studies comprises a key challenge. Research limitations/implications – The key issues in conducting qualitative synthesis are highlighted and the barriers and enablers to the application of the product of qualitative synthesis in practice are discussed. Originality/value – The paper stimulates debate about what counts as an effective synthesis of qualitative research and highlights the growing array of approaches. In so doing the paper presents new models for the production of evidence-based reviews. Keywords Management research, Qualitative research, Evidence-based practice Paper type Research paper
Introduction The production of qualitative management research has grown exponentially over recent years generating an extensive stock of knowledge. For the practising manager this information has the potential to be thought provoking, persuasive and the basis for decision-making and action. However, there are few clear signs of its direct impact in the world of management practice. When managers face decisions or implement organisational interventions, often they prefer to draw on their experience, intuition or social networks rather than the science base. However, with the advent of the knowledge economy and a growing recognition within firms, they need to exploit their knowledge assets (Eisenhardt and Santos, 2002; Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Spender, 1996; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Davenport and Prusak, 1998), it is important that the scholarly and practitioner communities develop processes and methodologies for bringing research evidence together systematically and applying it in practice. In this paper we explore the dislocation of research from practice and present a number of barriers to the effective exploitation of management research. We go on to This paper results from research undertaken in Cranfield IMRC (EPSRC) grant no IMRC19, “Developing a methodology for evidence-informed management knowledge using systematic review”, Professor David Tranfield and Dr David Denyer.
Management Decision Vol. 44 No. 2, 2006 pp. 213-227 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0025-1747 DOI 10.1108/00251740610650201
MD 44,2
214
argue that in a fragmented field such as management, new methods of synthesis may be required to deal with the diverse and varied literature. Three qualitative approaches to synthesis are presented and their potential contributions to the management field are explored. We discuss the key issues in conducting qualitative synthesis and explore some of the philosophical and practical challenges. Finally, we argue that qualitative research synthesis can provide an effective means of producing an actionable knowledge base. The relevance of management research Some 40 years ago the Ford Foundation (Gordon and Howell, 1959) and Carnegie Council (Pierson, 1959) reports established a key mission for management research, which was to legitimise itself within the context of the social sciences. This “scientisation” of the management field emphasised a concern for establishing the discipline of management on the traditional social science model of research. By and large a much more scientific approach subsequently has been developed in understanding the field of management. As a result, an extensive science base has been created with an extensive range of learning journals, which have been used to house a significant and voluminous knowledge stock. However, it could be argued that the downside of this strategic mission has been the dislocation of knowledge producers from knowledge users, resulting in a “relevance gap” (Starkey and Madan, 2001). Overcoming this division by creating a management research, that is both theoretically sound and methodologically rigorous, as well as relevant to the practitioner community, has become a key theme in recent years and the subject of much academic debate on both sides of the Atlantic (Berry, 1995; Pettigrew, 1997; Tranfield and Starkey, 1998; Wind and Nueno, 1998; Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999; Starkey and Madan, 2001; Aram and Saliparte, 2000; van Aken, 2004; Hodgkinson et al., 2001). To overcome the separation of research from practice, management research commentators have argued for a number of key methodological changes, questioning the assumptions behind positivism and the domination of the field by “normal” scientific methods. Many authors such as Berry (1995) have argued that actionable knowledge can be produced from qualitative work (see for example other articles in this special issue). As a result, there has been a significant shift in research methods towards the deployment of qualitative methods. Other researchers have made a case for the privileging of academic-user relations and the production of knowledge in the “context of application” (Gibbons et al., 1994). Tranfield and Starkey (1998), for example, argued that the Mode 2 knowledge production system might benefit the future of management research by encouraging knowledge co-production. On the other hand, in contrast to focussing on new forms of knowledge production, some scholars contend that practical knowledge can indeed derive from traditional scientific knowledge by improving the efficiency of transfer mechanisms (van de Ven and Johnson, 2003). To improve the uptake and increase the chances of exploitation, scientific knowledge must be effectively translated into the language and frame of reference of the practitioner (Mohrman, 2001). The disconnection between academic research and practice is a phenomenon common in both the physical and social science disciplines. To overcome this challenge many fields have adopted an evidence-based approach, which puts synthesised
findings from systematic literature reviews at the service of experienced professionals. The purpose is to ensure that practitioners and end users adopt interventions that high quality research has shown to be effective (Hamer and Collinson, 1999; Muir-Gray, 1997; Trinder and Reynolds, 2000). Novel systematic literature review methodologies have been developed, particularly in medical science, that locate, appraise and synthesise existing research evidence to ensure that the outputs are more relevant for policy and practice. These developments have led the way in offering an evidence-based “design template” for consideration by the business and management field. In considering an evidence-based approach using systematic review, Tranfield et al. (2003) conclude that despite distinct epistemological and ontological differences between the medical and management sciences, the development of a bespoke evidence informed methodology for management could provide an important and effective means of creating actionable knowledge. However, understanding the precise nature of management research is a key requirement when considering the potential use of techniques such as systematic review which have been developed to service other academic fields. The fragmented nature of the management research field The epistemological and ontological status of the field of management and organisation research has been subject, over the years, to considerable analysis and discussion. Much of this conversation and debate has focused upon fragmentation (Whitley, 1984a) and the absence of cohesion, in terms of both epistemological consensus and research agenda (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998). Management research is a relatively young field, which arguably is still developing in terms of agenda and question formulation. Whereas more mature fields, such as medicine or engineering, enjoy considerable and extensive consensus, this is untrue of management research in general (Tranfield et al., 2003). In management research there tends to be low agreement concerning key research questions to be addressed and methods to be used. Consequently, there are very few areas in which continuous research over a period of years has tackled specific problems in a consistent manner, or sought a unified understanding of particular phenomena (Tranfield et al., 2003). The fragmentation of models, methods and appropriate frameworks for investigation has resulted in difficulties when establishing agreed thresholds for what constitutes high quality evidence (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998). There are often hot disputes, with strong resistance to privileging one research method over another. The fragmented nature of management research (Whitley, 1984a, b) has resulted in separate sub fields creating their own distinct questions, hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions (Baligh et al., 1996). These disconnected groups often engage in their work oblivious to work in related areas. For example, Salipante et al. (1982), complains that one sub-field is: Lacking any general model of review methods (and as a result) this literature has remained somewhat disconnected, undeveloped, and under-utilised across different domains of research (p. 322).
Following the accelerated pace of knowledge production in the field of management and organisation over the two decades since Salipante’s observation, the fragmentation of the field can only be argued to have been amplified. Synthesising diverse literatures
Using qualitative research synthesis 215
MD 44,2
216
into a coherent whole and accumulating a knowledge base that can serve both the research and practitioner communities therefore has become an increasing challenge. The role literature reviews play in management research Conducting reviews of existing research is a critical competence for a scholar in the field of management in order to position their contribution to knowledge and to construct reasoned, logical and substantiated arguments. Since most primary research studies are required to be grounded in previous research, conceptual models or theories, the management science base is typically built in small, incremental steps with each new primary study building upon previous research. As noted by Light and Pillemer (1984): The need for research synthesis can only be realized when one understands that in order for the gains in scholarship to be cumulative, there must be a link between the past and future research. Often the need for a new study is not as great as the need for the assimilation of already existing studies. Thus the latter is a prerequisite of the former (p 169).
In addition to contributing to the research community, the review of existing research evidence has the potential to guide managers by providing ideas, illustrations and recommendations for practice. The use of reviews of the available evidence to provide insights and guidance for intervention into the operational needs of practitioners and policy-makers has largely been ignored within the field of management. Researchers have at their disposal a number of techniques for making sense of a cumulative set of primary research articles. The most common technique in management research is the traditional literature review in which the researcher summarises and interprets previous contributions in a subjective and narrative fashion. Traditional literature reviews have been criticised because the determination of which studies are to be included in the review and the appraisal of study quality can be subjective. Such reviews are often partial and rarely include all studies relating to a particular issue. In education, for example, it was argued by Glass (1976) that: The armchair literature review in which one cites a couple of dozen studies from the obvious journals can’t do justice to the voluminous literature of . . . research that we now confront (p. 4).
Researchers in many fields have also argued that different individuals synthesising the same research evidence often arrived at entirely different conclusions (Mulrow, 1994; Antman et al., 1992). Because of this traditional reviews have been criticised as an unreliable basis on which to base policy and practice (Antman et al., 1992). Systematic reviews Within many domains it is commonly assumed that the validity of the findings of a review are dependent on the comprehensiveness of the search and the comparability of the studies located. It is with this in mind that systematic reviews have been developed to synthesise research according to an explicit and reproducible methodology (Greenhalgh, 1997, p. 672). Cooper (1998) highlights the principles of systematic review: The approach to research synthesis presented . . . represents a significant departure from how reviews had been conducted just 20 years ago. Instead of a subjective, narrative approach, this book presents an objective systematic approach. Here, the reader will learn how to carry
out an integration of research according to scientific principles and rules. The intended result is a research synthesis that can be replicated by others, can create consensus among scholars, and can focus debate in a constructive fashion (p. xi).
Systematic reviews have become regarded as the most reliable form of research review (Clarke and Oxman, 2001; NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001) due directly to the explicit and rigorous methods utilised (Mulrow, 1994). Cook (1997) suggests that systematic review, in contrast to a traditional review: Includes a clear statement of the purpose of the review, a comprehensive search and retrieval of the relevant research, explicit selection criteria, critical appraisal of the primary studies, and reproducible decisions regarding relevance, selection, and methodological rigour of the primary research (p. 350).
In conjunction with systematic review, Meta analysis is frequently used to quantitatively combine the data from studies on the same topic in order to reach some general conclusions about the effect of X intervention on Y outcome (Cook et al., 1997, p. 380). The primary motive behind this form of aggregative synthesis is to provide greater confidence in the results of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis: Allows for an increase in power and thus based on a summary estimate of the effect size and its confidence interval, a certain intervention may be proved to be effective even if the individual studies lacked the power to show effectiveness (Ohlsson, 1994, p. 27).
The aim of systematic review in its original form is to produce results that are generalisable to other contexts and can be used to make reasonable predictions of future events. The aim of meta-analysis is the development of algorithmic guidelines (Pawson, 2001). In medicine, for example, an algorithmic rule might be: “to treat disorder Y in adult males, administer 0.2 milligrams of medicine X, once a day for 21 days”. Where several different types of intervention are synthesised, the practitioner is presented with a league table showing which type of interventions are most likely to have the most positive effect (Pawson, 2001). The limitations of systematic review and meta-analysis Whilst some authors have argued that systematic review methodologies developed in the natural sciences can inform other fields, others have suggested that they are not transferable for use in the social sciences (Hammersley, 2001). Indeed, some researchers have resisted undertaking systematic reviews on philosophical and epistemological grounds, arguing they are based on a positivistic epistemology and cannot accommodate other perspectives. Within the natural sciences, the quest for “truth” and the elimination of bias in reviews has been a central concern. In the social sciences the existence of objective truth is often contested and bias is often an accepted dimension of knowledge, to be acknowledged rather than eliminated. A further major weakness of meta-analysis is its inability to cope with variation in study design, study populations, study context and types of analysis (Cook et al., 1997, p. 290). Within fragmented fields such as management, researchers address a range of research questions and draw on a range of methodologies making heterogeneity a key challenge. Even where comparable studies are located, in complex social situations there are always likely to be subtle differences between studies. Combining studies in
Using qualitative research synthesis 217
MD 44,2
218
order to achieve a mean effect can remove critical contextual information (Hammersley, 2001). Using qualitative evidence to create actionable knowledge Researchers promoting systematic reviews have often excluded qualitative studies from evidence-based reviews. For example, Oakley (2000) claims that anything else but randomised, controlled trials “is a ‘disservice to vulnerable people’” (Oakley, 2000, p. 318; quoting Macdonald, 1996, p. 21). Whilst most researchers take a less extreme position, qualitative studies are frequently misrepresented or undervalued in systematic reviews (Hammersley, 2001), often being simply summarised and appended to systematic review reports. Some attempts have been made to integrate qualitative and quantitative data using Bayesian meta-analysis (Roberts et al., 2002). To achieve this, a summary of the qualitative data is used to develop a probability distribution (prior distribution), which can be tested later using a more conventional synthesis of the quantitative data. In so doing the qualitative and quantitative data are combined to produce a posterior distribution. However, this approach favours the quantitative data in a way that is unacceptable for most qualitative researchers. Recently, however, the potential contribution of qualitative research for the purposes of informing policy and practice has been recognised and increasingly valued within the evidence-based approach. A great deal of interest has emerged across many disciplines regarding the synthesis and utilisation of qualitative studies for the purposes of informing policy and practice. For example, the Cochrane Collaboration has developed a Qualitative Methods Group, based at Lancaster University with the purpose of demonstrating the value of including evidence from qualitative research in systematic reviews and developing and disseminating methods for including qualitative research in systematic reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, 2005). The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Health Development Agency (HDA) funded Dixon-Woods et al. (2004)), to address the question of how qualitative research may be incorporated in systematic reviews. The HDA has also provided funding in 2003/2004 for a series of seminars encouraging methodological development in research synthesis, bringing together quantitative and qualitative researchers from both the natural and social sciences. As a result, a wide range of techniques to qualitatively synthesise research have been developed and tested across a range of disciplines including management, public health, social care and education. Dixon-Woods et al. (2004) have identified 12 qualitative approaches to research synthesis: (1) narrative synthesis; (2) grounded theory – constant comparison; (3) meta-ethnography; (4) meta-synthesis; (5) meta-study; (6) logical analysis; (7) data analysis techniques; (8) metaphorical analysis; (9) domain analysis;
(10) hermeneutical analysis; (11) discourse analysis; and (12) analytic induction. Whilst each of the approaches in Table I has been used to produce qualitative research synthesis, in most cases examples of their application are limited. However, the use of three approaches, narrative synthesis, meta-ethnography and realist synthesis, has increased rapidly across different disciplines. In the section below we present these important approaches to qualitative research synthesis and explore their potential for use in management research. Although we cannot provide an exhaustive explanation of these methodologies and specific steps within the space available, we outline the study designs that can be accommodated, the review process/method of synthesis and explain how the output of the synthesis can be used to inform policy and practice. Narrative synthesis Narrative synthesis focuses on how studies addressing a different aspect of the same phenomenon can be narratively summarised and built up to provide a bigger picture of that phenomenon. Narrative synthesis is largely a process of compiling descriptive data and exemplars from individual studies and building them into a mosaic or map (Hammersley, 2001). Rumrill and Fitzgerald (2001) argue that there are four potential objectives of a narrative synthesis: to develop or advance theoretical models; to identify, explain, and provide perspectives on complicated or controversial issues; to provide information that can assist practitioners in advancing “best” practice; to present new perspectives on important and emerging issues. Narrative synthesis is a flexible approach that allows the reviewer to be reflexive and critical (Hart, 1998). However, in so doing, the narrative approach is open to bias and misinterpretation (Cook et al., 1997) as it is possible that authors selectively quote only research that supports a particular position (Griffiths, 2002). As such it is not uncommon for two researchers reviewing the same question to report contradictory findings (Rumrill and Fitzgerald, 2001). Unlike meta-analysis, where there must be a “fit” between the nature and the quality of the secondary sources, narrative synthesis can accommodate differences between the questions, research designs and the contexts of each of the individual studies. Narrative approaches are particularly valuable when the sample of studies includes qualitative contributions, which are frequently chosen to provide a strong sense of context (Cassell and Symon, 1994). Narrative reviews provide deep and “rich” information (Light and Pillemer, 1984) and enable the wholeness or integrity of the studies to be maintained, thus preserving the idiosyncratic nature of individual studies (Pawson, 2001). Meta-ethnography Meta-ethnography is comprised of a comparative textual analysis of qualitative studies and offers three alternative methods: “refutational synthesis” which is used to reconcile apparently contradictory explanations between studies; “reciprocal translations” which can be used to translate concepts of comparable studies into one another; and “lines of argument synthesis” which attempts to produce a higher order interpretation grounded in the findings of the primary studies (Noblit and Hare, 1988).
Using qualitative research synthesis 219
Table I. Three different forms of qualitative research synthesis
Realist synthesis Development and testing of programme theories
Meta-ethnography Translation of the findings of some studies into the terms of another
Narrative synthesis Develop understanding by building a mosaic or map
Review process
Can accommodate any research designs but requires a lot of detail about the context and process of programmes. Therefore, may be more suited to qualitative studies
Intended for ethnographic studies but is also suited to long-term, intensive studies involving observation, interviewing, and document review
Lack of transparency/ subjectivity No guidance on sampling Captures a list of vital ingredients or mechanisms (positive or negative) that gives subjects the resources (material, social, cognitive) to generate change?
No guidance on locating or selecting studies Some screening of inappropriate studies The worth of studies is determined in the process of achieving a synthesis
A diversity of literatures and Flexible study designs Opportunistic search and selection Heavily dependent on skills and prejudices of reviewer
Study designs accommodated
Often there is no attempt to seek generalisations or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed Rarely pragmatic or oriented towards practice
Output/use
Synthesis is not just the review of the evidence but requires the tacit testing of submerged theories The researcher then builds theory by accumulating understanding of the generative mechanism across a range of programmes in a wide range of different contexts
The aim of synthesis is to produce a transferable programme theory in the form of “what works for whom in which circumstances” Pragmatic and oriented to policy and practice
The lists of the key Provides a new metaphors, phrases, ideas, interpretation based on the and/or concepts (and their sum of the individual studies relations) used in each account are juxtaposed The senses of different accounts are then translated into one another In its simplistic form, translation involves treating the accounts as analogies: One programme is like another except . . .
Summary, description and explanation of the studies Does not aim to fully integrate studies
Approach to synthesis
220
Review type
MD 44,2
Meta-ethnography is driven by interpretation, not analysis, is seen as an alternative to the positivist paradigm and assumes that the social and theoretical contexts in which substantive findings emerge should be preserved through the synthesis (Noblit and Hare, 1988, pp. 5-6). The orientation of meta-ethnography is analogous to a grounded theory approach in so far as it uses open coding and identifies categories emerging from the data as well as making constant comparisons between individual accounts (Beck, 2001). The reviewer identifies and lists key metaphors (themes, perspectives, phrases, ideas, and/or concepts) from each individual study (Noblit and Hare, 1988). These metaphors are then “put together” by linking the metaphors across studies interpretively to provide a holistic account of the phenomenon (Suri, 1999). Conducting a meta-ethnography necessarily involves abstracting from individual real world cases. To many qualitative researchers the results of a study are specific to one particular context at one point in time (Campbell et al., 2003). Noblit and Hare (1988) argue that all synthesis, whether quantitative or qualitative involves interpretation as the reviewer gives meaning to the sets of studies under consideration. Importantly, meta-ethnography enables the reader to translate the studies into her/his own social understanding (1988, p. 18). It consists of a process of “like-with-like” comparison, while remembering that the translator is always translating studies into her/his own world-view (1988, p. 25). As such, advocates of the approach argue that translations are unique forms of synthesis that preserve the interpretive qualities of the original data by: Carefully peeling away the surface layers of studies to find their hearts and souls in a way that does least damage to them (Sandelowski et al., 1997, p. 370).
The major weakness of meta-ethnography is that any interpretation is only one possible reading of the studies and it is quite feasible for another investigator to have an entirely different reading (Noblit and Hare, 1988). Despite this, meta-ethnography is now beginning to gain ground in the field of systematic review in the UK (Britten et al., 2002; Campbell et al., 2003). Campbell et al. (2003) p. 673), for example, argue that meta-ethnography is: Perhaps the best developed method for synthesising qualitative data and one which clearly had its origins in the interpretivist paradigm, from which most methods of primary qualitative research evolved.
Realist synthesis The third form of synthesis we have chosen involves the development and testing of theoretical ideas. Pawson (2001) has introduced realist synthesis as a technique for evaluating the effectiveness of policy programmes by utilising the findings from a range of study types. Pawson argues that social interventions are theories and act through mechanisms – resources provided to subjects in order to change their reasoning. Whether change is achieved depends on the nature of the actors and the circumstances of the programme. Realist synthesis surfaces and articulates the programme theories underpinning an initiative, and then attempts to verify, falsify or refine the programme theory using the available evidence.
Using qualitative research synthesis 221
MD 44,2
The reviewers’ task is to inspect the programme theory in a range of contexts. Each paper is described and discussed in terms of its contribution to the emerging theory. The results take the form of a revised model designed to explain for whom, in what circumstances, in what respect and why certain interventions work (Pawson, 2004). For Pawson, cumulative realist synthesis aspires to a “mid-range theory”, a theory that lies:
222
Between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behaviour, social organization and social change (Merton, 1968, p. 39).
Understanding the nature of the relationship between the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes is crucial. For example, the mechanism of “naming and shaming” works well in many contexts, but when used in non-payment of council tax was found, among certain communities, to create “heroes” rather than “villains”. In another review Pawson (2004) suggests that in certain circumstances mentoring is better at befriending, but progressively less successful at direction setting, coaching and advocacy. Comparing alternative approaches to qualitative research synthesis Several appraisal tools in the form of checklists have been developed to help researchers and policy makers make sense of systematic reviews (for example, see Hunt and Mckibbon, 1997). These tools typically comprise of a set of simple criteria to evaluate the process in which evidence is assembled, the validity of the results and whether or not they are capable for informing practice (Hunt and Mckibbon, 1997). However, a framework comprising of key criteria for comparing and appraising qualitative and theoretical approaches to research synthesis is currently unavailable. In Table I we propose a framework for comparing qualitative approaches to research synthesis and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the three methods of research synthesis outlined in the previous section. This framework may guide researchers, policy makers and practitioner is making choices when commissioning or producing research reviews. Discussion: the benefits of qualitative synthesis Our view is that evidence-based reviews using qualitative research synthesis can contribute significantly to the development of actionable knowledge in a number of ways. First, evidence-based reviews, unlike traditional literature reviews, are driven by a user led agenda. Practitioners and potential users can be engaged alongside academics in framing specific review questions. The dialogue that this facilitates enables the exchange of ideas, clarification, refocusing and refining of the research objectives (Tranfield et al., 2004). Second, unlike systematic reviews and meta-analyses, qualitative syntheses are generally inclusive; being capable of integrating different forms of evidence generated from different methods such as action research, case studies, in-depth interviewing and observation studies. Some methods of qualitative synthesis are also capable of including quantitative and theoretical contributions as well as “grey” literature, including contributions in practitioner journals, conference papers, books, policy documents and reports from public and private sector bodies.
Third, qualitative reviews may not aspire to objectivity, since the “hallmark of good qualitative methodology is its flexibility rather than standardisation” (Popay et al., 1998, p. 346). However, many methods share a concern for transparency of the processes undertaken and the decisions made by the researcher. Transparency not only ensures that potential users of the review can question the decisions and judgements made by the reviewer, but also necessitates critical self-reflection and sensemaking. The resultant hermeneutical deliberations may lead to new perspectives or a deeper understanding of the subject. Fourth, meta-ethnography and realist synthesis demonstrate that qualitative synthesis can be used to distinguish important variables (themes, ideas, and/or concepts) from confounding factors. The reviewer can then compare and contrast separate studies and if the synthesis discovers that an attribute is consistently found across a wide range of settings and populations, the author may surmise that the attribute is pertinent (Pawson, 2001). By highlighting the key dimensions of successful and unsuccessful practices, qualitative synthesis can offer managers insights into the work that they do and how they may carry it out more effectively and efficiently. Finally, evidence based reviews and qualitative synthesis can “have impact” by being “presented in an accessible and usable form in the real world of practice and policy making” (Sandelowski et al., 1997, p. 365). Whilst the product of synthesis may not produce knowledge that can be directly applied and used instrumentally (Beyer and Trice, 1982), the products of qualitative synthesis may be used conceptually, contributing to individual and organisational learning and influencing practice in indirect ways. This supports and encourages evidence informed practice rather than attempting to substitute rule driven behaviour. For example, for the product of qualitative synthesis to be used to inform decision-making and action in local circumstances, there remains an imperative that it must be interpreted, contextualised and integrated with the personal skills and experiences of the practitioner/manager. This linking of science base to experience and professional judgement is central to an evidence-based approach. Conclusion: applying the product of qualitative synthesis in practice Existing management research will not contribute to management practice if individual studies simply accumulate in academic journals. In many social science fields tight coupling of the science base to policy and practice has involved reviewing fields of literature in order to synthesise and convey essential collective wisdom from existing research studies to professional practice. Whilst systematic review methods in general and meta-analysis in particular have not fitted comfortably with qualitative approaches, as Davies et al. (2000), p. 4) argue optimistically: The different ontological and epistemological starting points in different professional traditions undoubtedly colour the methods and enthusiasm with which professionals engage with evidence. However, what is clear is that there remains in all of the areas examined great potential for research evidence to be vastly more influential than hitherto.
In this article we have presented three alternative approaches to qualitative synthesis, each with different methodologies and outputs. Narrative synthesists argue that studies should be summarised and interpreted to provide a full understanding of the phenomenon and the context under consideration. Meta-ethnographers infer that it is
Using qualitative research synthesis 223
MD 44,2
224
possible to translate the findings of some studies into the terms of another to build higher-level constructs, whilst realist synthesists argue for the development of transferable mid-range theories in the form of “what works, for whom, in which circumstances” (Pawson, 2001). Whilst, many of the techniques of synthesis remain embryonic, undeveloped and in need of further exploration, we share Davies et al.’s (2000) optimistic view that qualitative research synthesis already developed and in use in other fields can provide the management field with a means of creating actionable knowledge in the future. References Antman, E.M., Lau, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F. and Chalmers, T.C. (1992), “A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts”, JAMA, Vol. 268 No. 2, p. 240. Aram, J.D. and Saliparte, P.F. (2000), “Applied research in management: criteria for management educators and for practitioner-scholars”, US Academy of Management Conference: A New Time, Paper 650 in Multiple Perspectives on Learning in Management Education, Toronto. Baligh, H.H., Burton, R.M. and Obel, B. (1996), “Organizational consultant: creating a useable theory for organizational design”, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 12, pp. 16-48. Beck, C.T. (2001), “Caring with nursing education: a metasynthesis”, Journal of Nursing Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 101-10. Berry, M. (1995), “Research and the practice of management: a French view”, Organizational Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 104-16. Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1982), “The utilization process: a conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 591-622. Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M. and Donovan, J. (2003), “Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 671-84. Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (1994), Qualitative Methods In Organizational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage, London. Clarke, M. and Oxman, A.D. (2001), Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 4.1.4 (updated October). Cochrane Collaboration (2005), Cochrane Qualitative Methods Network, available at: www.iphrp. salford.ac.uk/cochrane/homepage.htm Conner, K.R. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), “A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501. Cook, D. (1997), “Systematic reviews: the case for rigorous methods and rigorous reporting”, Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 350-3. Cook, D.J., Mulrow, C.D. and Haynes, R.B. (1997), “Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 376-80. Cooper, H.M. (1998), Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, 3rd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, C. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Davies, H.T.O., Nutley, S.M. and Smith, P.C. (2000), What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services, Policy Press, Bristol.
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal1, S., Young, B., Jones, D. and Sutton, A. (2004), Integrative Approaches to Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence, Health Development Agency, London, available at: www.hda.nhs.uk Eisenhardt, K.M. and Santos, F.M. (2002), “Knowledge-based view: a new theory of strategy?”, in Pettigrew, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Strategy and Management, Sage, London, pp. 138-64. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London. Glass, G.V. (1976), “Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 5, pp. 3-8. Gordon, R. and Howell, J. (1959), Higher Education for Business, Columbia University Press, New York, NY. Greenhalgh, T. (1997), “Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses)”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 315 No. 7109, pp. 672-5. Griffiths, P. (2002), “Evidence informing practice: introducing the mini-review”, British Journal of Community Nursing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 38-40. Hamer, S. and Collinson, G.E. (1999), Achieving Evidence-Based Practice: a Handbook for Practitioners, Baillicˇre Tindall, Edinburgh. Hammersley, M. (2001), “On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: a ‘narrative’ response to Evans and Benefield”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 543-54. Hart, C. (1998), Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination, Sage Publications, London. Hodgkinson, G.P., Herriot, P. and Anderson, N. (2001), “Re-aligning the stakeholders in management research: lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, special issue, pp. 41-8. Hunt, D.L. and Mckibbon, K.A. (1997), “Locating and appraising systematic reviews”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 126 No. 7, pp. 532-8. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Light, R.J. and Pillemer, D.B. (1984), Summing Up, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA. Macdonald, G. (1996), “Ice therapy? Why we need randomised controls”, What Works? Effective Social Interventions in Child Welfare, Barnados, Ilford. Merton, R.K. (1968), Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, New York, NY. Mohrman, S.A. (2001), “Seize the day: organization studies can and should make a difference”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 1, p. 57. Muir-Gray, J.A. (1997), Evidence Based Healthcare: How to Make Health Policy and Management Decisions, Churchill-Livingstone, London. Mulrow, C.D. (1994), “Systematic reviews – rationale for systematic reviews”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 309 No. 6954, pp. 597-9. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2001), Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD’s Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews, CRD Report Number 4, 2nd ed., York. Noblit, G.W. and Hare, R.D. (1988), Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies, Sage, London. Oakley, A. (2000), Experiments in Knowing: Gender and Method in the Social Sciences, Polity Press and The New Press, Cambridge and New York, NY.
Using qualitative research synthesis 225
MD 44,2
226
Ohlsson, A. (1994), “Systematic reviews – theory and practice”, Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, Vol. 54, pp. 25-32. Pawson, R. (2001), Evidence Based Policy: II. The Promise of “Realist Synthesis”, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Queen Mary, University of London, London, www.evidencenetwork.org/cgi-win/enet.exe/biblioview?2448 Pawson, R. (2004), Mentoring Relationships: an Explanatory Review, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Department of Politics, Queen Mary, University of London, London, www.evidencenetwork.org/cgi-win/enet.exe/biblioview?2448 Pierson, F.C. (1959), The Education of American Businessmen: A Study of University College Programs in Business Administration, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Pettigrew, A.M. (1997), “The double hurdles for management, research”, Advancement in Organizational Behaviour, Ashgate, Aldershot. Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (1999), “Knowing ‘what’ to do is not enough: turning knowledge into action”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 83-108. Popay, J., Rogers, A. and Williams, G. (1998), “Rationale and standards in the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 8 No. 341351. Roberts, K.A., Dixon-Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Abrams, K.R. and Jones, D.R. (2002), “Factors affecting uptake of childhood immunisation: a Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence”, Lancet, Vol. 360, pp. 1596-9. Rumrill, P.D. and Fitzgerald, S.M. (2001), “Using narrative reviews to build a scientific knowledge base”, Work, Vol. 16, pp. 165-70. Salipante, P., Notz, W. and Bigelow, J. (1982), “A matrix approach to literature reviews”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 321-48. Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S. and Emden, C. (1997), “Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques”, Research in Nursing and Health, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 365-71. Spender, J.C. (1996), “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62. Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001), “Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, special issue, pp. S3-S26. Suri, H. (1999), “The process of synthesising qualitative research: a case study”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Qualitative Research, Melbourne. Tranfield, D. and Starkey, K. (1998), “The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: towards policy”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 341-53. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-22. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Marcos, J. and Burr, M. (2004), “Co-producing management knowledge”, Management Decision, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4. Trinder, L. and Reynolds, S.E. (2000), Evidence-Based Practice: A Clinical Approach, Blackwell Science, Oxford. van Aken, J. (2004), “Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field tested and grounded technological rules”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 219-46.
van de Ven, A.H. and Johnson, P.E. (2003), “Knowledge of science, practice, and policy”, working paper, Strategic Management Research Centre, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Whitley, R. (1984a), “The fragmented state of management studies: reasons and consequences”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 331-48. Whitley, R. (1984b), “The scientific status of management research as a practically-oriented social science”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 369-90. Wind, J. and Nueno, P. (1998), “The impact imperative: closing the relevance gap of academic management research”, paper presented at the International Academy of Management North America Meeting, New York, NY. Further reading Jensen, L.A. and Allen, M.N. (1996), “Meta-synthesis of qualitative findings”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 553-60. Corresponding author David Denyer can be contacted at:
[email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Using qualitative research synthesis 227
