SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 25 Sayı: 1

Meta-Synthesis: A Method for Holistic Synthesis of Qualitative Research

Meta-Sentez: Nitel Araştırmaların Bütüncül Sentezi İçin Bir Yöntem

Ayşe Dericioğulları Ergun(MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4667-2673
Pages
177–199
Publication Date
2026-01-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the meta-synthesis method is a powerful analytical technique that supports interdisciplinary knowledge production.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study explores the conceptual framework, historical development, and application processes of the meta-synthesis method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Unlike traditional literature reviews, it does not merely summarize studies but integrates qualitative findings from different contexts to establish broader theoretical frameworks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the meta-synthesis method is a powerful analytical technique that supports interdisciplinary knowledge production.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Meta-Sentez · Nitel Araştırma · Sistematik Derleme

Abstract

This study explores the conceptual framework, historical development, and application processes of the meta-synthesis method. Meta-synthesis is a method that systematically synthesizes qualitative research findings to develop new theoretical models. Unlike traditional literature reviews, it does not merely summarize studies but integrates qualitative findings from different contexts to establish broader theoretical frameworks. The study explains the key stages of meta-synthesis, including literature search, determination of inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment processes, and data analysis. It emphasizes that incorporating methodological tools such as PRISMA, CASP, and JBI enhances the reliability of the synthesis process. However, uncertainties in study selection, methodological diversity, contextual differences, and researcher bias are among the limitations of meta-synthesis. To improve its reliability, the integration of technological innovations and the development of methodological standards are recommended. In conclusion, the meta-synthesis method is a powerful analytical technique that supports interdisciplinary knowledge production. However, increasing methodological transparency and establishing a more systematic framework are crucial to enhancing its scientific reliability.

Özet

Bu çalışma, meta-sentez yönteminin kavramsal çerçevesini, tarihsel gelişimini ve uygulama süreçlerini ele almaktadır. Meta-sentez, nitel araştırmalardan elde edilen verilerin sistematik bir şekilde sentezlenerek yeni teorik modeller oluşturulmasını sağlayan bir yöntemdir. Geleneksel literatür derlemelerinden farklı olarak, yalnızca araştırmaları özetlemek yerine, farklı bağlamlardan elde edilen nitel bulguları bütünleştirerek daha geniş teorik çerçeveler geliştirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Çalışmada, meta-sentezin literatür tarama, dahil etme ve dışlama kriterlerinin belirlenmesi, kalite değerlendirme süreçleri ve veri analizi gibi temel aşamaları açıklanmaktadır. PRISMA, CASP ve JBI gibi metodolojik araçların sürece dahil edilmesinin, sentez sürecinin güvenilirliğini artırdığı vurgulanmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, çalışmaların seçimindeki belirsizlikler, metodolojik çeşitlilik, bağlamsal farklılıklar ve araştırmacı yanlılığı, meta-sentezin sınırlılıkları arasında yer almaktadır. Yöntemin daha güvenilir hale getirilmesi için teknolojik yeniliklerin entegrasyonu ve metodolojik standartların geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir. Sonuç olarak, meta-sentez yöntemi, disiplinler arası bilgi üretimini destekleyen güçlü bir analiz tekniğidir. Ancak, yöntemsel şeffaflığın artırılması ve daha sistematik bir çerçeve oluşturulması, meta-sentezin bilimsel alandaki güvenilirliğini artırmak adına önem arz etmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

Ergun, A. D. (2026). Meta-Synthesis: A Method for Holistic Synthesis of Qualitative Research. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 1, 177–199. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1657490

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Aküzüm, C., & Özmen, F. (2014). Eğitim denetmenlerinin mesleki gelişim, tükenmişlik ve iş doyumuna ilişkin bir meta-sentez çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(49), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.88173
  2. Atkinson, C. F. (2024). Cheap, quick, and rigorous: Artificial intelligence and the systematic literature review. Social Science Computer Review, 42(2), 376-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393231196281
  3. Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(59). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
  4. Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. SAGE Publications.
  5. Bergdahl, E. (2019). Is meta-synthesis turning rich descriptions into thin reductions? A criticism of meta-aggregation as a form of qualitative synthesis. Nursing Inquiry, 26(1), e12273. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12273
  6. Bondas, T., & Hall, E. O. (2007). Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(1), 113-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306295879
  7. Bramer, W. M., De Jonge, G. B., Rethlefsen, M. L., Mast, F., & Kleijnen, J. (2018). A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(4), 531-541. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.283
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  9. Britten, N., Garside, R., Pope, C., Frost, J., & Cooper, C. (2017). Asking More of Qualitative Synthesis: A Response to Sally Thorne. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1370–1376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317709010
  10. Brown, R. B. (2020). Breakthrough Knowledge Synthesis in the Age of Google. Philosophies, 5(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5010004
  11. Chrastina, J. (2018). Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies: Background, methodology and applications. NORDSCI International Conference. Helsinki, Finland. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED603222
  12. Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435-1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
  13. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. New York: SAGE Publications.
  14. Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. D. A. Buchanan, & A. Bryman (Dü) içinde, The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (s. 671-689). SAGE.
  15. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R., & Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(35), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
  16. Edwards, J., & Kaimal, G. (2016). Using meta-synthesis to support application of qualitative methods findings in practice: A discussion of meta-ethnography, narrative synthesis, and critical interpretive synthesis. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 51, 30-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2016.07.003
  17. Elvén, M. (2017). Reflections on qualitative meta-synthesis studies: Getting the search strategy right. Physical Therapy Reviews, 22(5-6), 219-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2017.1386265
  18. Fendt, J. (2023). Qualitative Studies in Management Research: An Emerging Epistemology of Meta-Analysis. Current Research in Psychology and Behavioral Science, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.54026/CRPBS/1084
  19. Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2018). A guide to qualitative meta-synthesis. New York: Routledge. Flemming, K., & Noyes, J. (2021). Qualitative evidence synthesis and decision making in health policy and systems research. Health Research Policy and Systems, 19(1), 34-50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00695-5
  20. Habersang, S., & Reihlen, M. (2024). Advancing Qualitative Meta-Studies (QMS): Current Practices and Reflective Guidelines for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Organizational Research Methods, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428124124018
  21. Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2011). Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(7), 1632-1642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05636.x.
  22. Horton, L. (2019). Making qualitative data more visible in policy: a critical appraisal of meta-synthesis. Qualitative Research, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941198819
  23. Hossain, L. N., Fernandez-Llimos, F., Luckett, T., Moullin, J. C., Durks, D., Franco-Trigo, L., Benrimoj, I., & Sabater-Hernández, D. (2017). Qualitative meta-synthesis of barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of community pharmacy services: Perspectives of patients, nurses, andgeneral medical practitioners. BMJ Open, 5(7), e015471. https://doi.org/10.1136/
  24. Joanna Briggs Institute. (2014). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI qualitative systematic reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute.
  25. Lockwood, C., & Pearson, A. (2013). A comparison of meta-aggregation and meta-ethnography as qualitative review methods. Wolters Kluwer/MR Books.
  26. Major, C., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. Routledge.
  27. Malterud, K. (2019). Qualitative research: Methods and applications. New York: SAGE.
  28. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. New York: SAGE Publications.
  29. Mohammed, M. A., Moles, R. J., & Chen, T. F. (2016). Meta-synthesis of qualitative research: the challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38, 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0289-2
  30. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  31. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. London: SAGE.
  32. Nye, E., Melendez‐Torres, G. J., & Bonell, C. (2016). Origins, methods and advances in qualitative meta‐synthesis. Review of Education, 4(1), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3065
  33. OHCHR. (2024). Meta-synthesis report of evaluations conducted during the programming Cycle 2018 - 2023. UN Human Rights.
  34. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D.,.., & Moher, D. (2021a). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  35. Page, M., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffman, T., Mulrow, C.,.., & McKenzie, J. (2021b). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
  36. Paterson, B. L. (2012). “It looks great but how do I know if it fits?”: an introduction to meta-synthesis research. K. Hannes, & C. Lockwood. içinde, Synthesizing Qualitative Research: Choosing the Right Approach (s. 1-20). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  37. Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. SAGE.
  38. Radael, W. H., Abib, G., & Takahashi, A. R. (2023). Using qualitative meta-synthesis to develop a risk and internationalization framework. The Qualitative Report, 28(8), 2380-2400. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2023.5296
  39. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.
  40. Sandelowski, M. (2006). “Meta-Jeopardy”: The crisis of representation in qualitativemetasynthesis. Nurs Outlook, 54, 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2005.05.004
  41. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer Publishing.
  42. Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., & Fontelo, P. (2007). Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 7(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-7-16
  43. Sim, J., & Mengshoel, A. M. (2023a). Theoretical and methodological considerations in qualitative synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 33(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221139254
  44. Sim, J., & Mengshoel, A. (2023b). Metasynthesis: issues of empirical and theoretical context. Quality & Quantity, 57, 3339-3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01502-w
  45. Soundy, A. (2024). Social Constructivist Meta-Ethnography - – A Framework Construction. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241244863
  46. Soundy, A., & Heneghan, N. R. (2022). Meta-ethnography. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(1), 266-286. https://doi.org/0.1080/1750984X.2021.1966822
  47. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  48. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
  49. Walsh, D., & Downe, (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.x
  50. Walsh, D., & Downe, (2006). Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery, 22(2), 108-119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2005.05.004
  51. Weed, M. (2008). A Potential Method for the Interpretive Synthesis of Qualitative Research: Issues in the Development of ‘Meta-Interpretation’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(1), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401222
  52. Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x
  53. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R., & Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(35), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
  54. Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2011). Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(7), 1632-1642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05636.x.
  55. Joanna Briggs Institute. (2014). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: Methodology for JBI qualitative systematic reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute.
  56. Major, C., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. Routledge.
  57. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D.,., & Moher, D. (2021a). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  58. Page, M., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffman, T., Mulrow, C.,., & McKenzie, J. (2021b). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160