SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: Özel Sayı 2 Özel Sayı

Bir Araştırma Metodolojisi Olarak Sistematik Literatür İncelemesi: Meta-Sentez Yöntemi

Arzu Toker

Pages
313–340
Publication Date
2022-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗

Özet

Farklı alanların metodolojik, kuramsal ve kavramsal gelişimine katkıda bulunan literatür incelemeleri, teknolojinin sunduğu olanakların da birleşmesiyle son yıllarda hemen hemen bütün disiplinlerde bilimsel ilerlemenin yönünü ve yapısını göstermesi açısından oldukça kullanışlı bir metodolojidir. Sistematik literatür incelemelerinde nicel araştırmaların sonuçlarının meta-analiz aracılığıyla birleştirilmesi olanaklıdır. Ancak nitel araştırmaların sonuçlarının sistematik bir şekilde nasıl birleştirileceği önemli bir sorundur. Bu makalenin çıkış noktası da literatür incelemelerine ilgi duyan araştırmacılara bu konuda bütüncül, kapsamlı ve toparlayıcı bir kaynak sunma isteğidir. Buradan yola çıkarak bu çalışmanın amacı sistematik meta-sentez yöntemini incelemek ve araştırmacılara bir kılavuz oluşturmaktır. Bu amaçlarla bir metodoloji olarak literatür incelemeleri ele alınmış, literatür incelemelerine genel bir bakış sunulmuş ve nitel araştırmaların sistematik literatür incelemesi anlamına gelen meta-sentez yöntemi detaylı bir şekilde açıklanmıştır. Ayrıca genelde sistematik literatür incelemelerinin, özelde ise meta-sentezin nasıl yürütüleceğine yönelik bazı yönergelere de yer verilmiştir.

Keywords
🔖

Cite This Article

Toker, A. (2022). Bir Araştırma Metodolojisi Olarak Sistematik Literatür İncelemesi: Meta-Sentez Yöntemi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 22 Sayı: Özel Sayı 2 Özel Sayı, 313–340. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1227360

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

References (63)

  1. Abedijafari, A. ve Amiri, M. (2019). Meta-synthesis as a method for synthesizing qualitative researches. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(99), 73-87. https://doi.org/10.30471/MSSH.2019.1629
  2. Abrahale, K., Sousa, S., Albuquerque, G., Padrão, P. ve Lunet, N. (2019). Street food research worldwide: A scoping review. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 32(2), 152-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12604
  3. Andkjær, S. ve Arvidsen, J. (2015). Places for active outdoor recreation–a scoping review. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 12, 25-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.10.001
  4. Arksey, H. ve O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
  5. Basu, A. (2017). How to conduct meta-analysis: A basic tutorial. PeerJ Preprints. 5:e2978v1, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2978v1
  6. Bettany-Saltikov, J. (2016). How to do a systematic literature review in nursing: A step-by-step guide. London: Open University Press.
  7. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. United States: Oxford University Press.
  8. Campbell, R., Pound, P., Pope, C., Britten, N., Pill, R., Morgan, M. ve Donovan, J. (2003). Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science&Medicine, 56(4), 671-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3
  9. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E. ve Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
  10. Crooks, V. A., Kingsbury, P., Snyder, J. ve Johnston, R. (2010). What is known about the patient’s experience of medical tourism? A scoping review. BMC health Services Research, 10(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-266
  11. Daudt, H. M., van Mossel, C. ve Scott, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC medical research methodology, 13(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-48
  12. De-Miguel-Molina, B., De-Miguel-Molina, M. ve Albors, J. (2015). How undertake a literature review through Bibliometrics. An example with review about user innovation. 1st International Conference on Business Management, 100, 104. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/ICBM.2015.1327
  13. Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., Shaw, R. L., Smith, J. A. ve Young, B. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058867
  14. Fetters, M. D. (2019). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage.
  15. Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Metasynthesis: The state of the art—so far. Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303253462
  16. Finlayson, K. W. ve Dixon, A. (2008). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A guide for the novice. Nurse Researcher, 15(2), 59-71. doi: 10.7748/nr2008.01.15.2.59.c6330
  17. France, E. F., Cunningham, M., Ring, N., Uny, I., Duncan, E. A., Jepson, R. G., … Booth, A. (2019). Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: The eMERGe reporting guidance. Bmc Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0
  18. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational researcher, 5(10), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
  19. Gough, D., Oliver, S. ve Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage.
  20. Gough, D. ve Richardson, M. (2018). Systematic reviews. K. A. Neuendorf (Yay. haz.), Advanced research methods for applied psychology içinde (s. 63-75) içinde. New York: Routledge.
  21. Gretzel, U. ve Kennedy-Eden, H. (2012). Meta analyses of tourism research. L. Dwyer, A. Gill ve Seetaram, N. (Yay. haz.), Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism içinde, (s. 459-471). United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  22. Hoon, C. (2013). Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 522-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113484969
  23. Jennings, L., D’Rozario, V., Goh, M., Sovereign, A., Brogger, M. ve Skovholt, T. (2008). Psychotherapy expertise in Singapore: A qualitative investigation. Psychotherapy Research, 18(5), 508-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802189782
  24. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. ve O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
  25. Li, S. ve Wang, H. (2018). Traditional literature review and research synthesis. A. Phakiti, P. De Costa, L. Plonsky ve S. Starfield (Yay. haz.), The Palgrave handbook of applied linguistics research methodology, (s. 123-144) içinde. United Kindom: Palgrave.
  26. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., … Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
  27. Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M. ve Singh, A. K. (2019). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678
  28. Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., ve Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 179-187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062
  29. Majeed, S. ve Kim, W. G. (2022). Emerging trends in wellness tourism: A scoping review. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-02-2022-0046
  30. Mays, N., Roberts, E. ve Popay, J. (2004). Synthesising research evidence. N. Fulop, P. Allen, A. Clarke, ve N. Black (Yay. haz.) Studying the organisation and delivery of health services (s. 200-232) İçinde. London: Routledge.
  31. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. ve Group*, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
  32. Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Systematic reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 309(6954), 597-599. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597
  33. Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A. ve Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
  34. Myers, G. ve Scarinci, J. (2022). Consumers’ use of smartphone technology for travel and tourism in a COVID Era: A scoping review. Journal of Resilient Economies, 2, 169-180. https://doi.org/10.25120/jre.2.1.2022.3923
  35. Noah Jr, P. D. (2017). A systematic approach to the qualitative meta-synthesis. Issues in Information Systems, 18(2), 196-205. https://doi.org/10.48009/2_iis_2017_196-205
  36. Noblit, G. W. ve Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. USA: Sage.
  37. Noblit, G. W. ve Hare, R. D. (1999). Chapter 5: Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative Studies. Counterpoints, 44, 93-123. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42975557#metadata_info_tab_contents
  38. Nye, E., Melendez-Torres, G. J. ve 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
  39. Padgett, D. K. (2016). Qualitative methods in social work research. New York: Sage.
  40. Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C. ve Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Thousands Oaks, California: Sage.
  41. Paul, J. ve Criado, A. R. (2020). The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? International Business Review, 29(4), 101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717
  42. Pedrosa, A., Martins, F. ve Breda, Z. (2022). Tourism routes: A scoping review. European Journal of Tourism Research, 32, 3216-3216. https://doi.org/10.54055/ejtr.v32i.2575
  43. Polat, S. ve Osman, A. Y. (2016). Meta-sentez: kavramsal bir çözümleme. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(2), 52-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c2s3m
  44. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Ramakrishna, S., Hall, C. M., Esfandiar, K. ve Seyfi, S. (2020). A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621
  45. Saini, M. ve Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. London: Oxford University Press.
  46. Sandelowski, M. ve Barroso, J. (2002). Finding the findings in qualitative studies. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(3), 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2002.00213.x
  47. Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S. ve Emden, C. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in nursing & health, 20(4), 365-371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4 3.0.CO;2-E
  48. Sarkis-Onofre, R., Catalá-López, F., Aromataris, E. ve Lockwood, C. (2021). How to properly use the PRISMA Statement. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01671-z
  49. Schreiber, R., Crooks, D. ve Stern, P. N. (1997). Qualitative meta-analysis. J. M. Morse (Yay. haz.) Completing a Qualitative Project: Details and Dialogue, (s. 311-326) içinde. USA: Sage.
  50. Shepherd, J., Harden, A., Rees, R., Brunton, G., Garcia, J., Oliver, S. ve Oakley, A. (2006). Young people and healthy eating: A systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health education research, 21(2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyh060
  51. Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M. ve Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747-770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
  52. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  53. Tekindal, M. ve Tonbalak, K. (2021). Nitel araştırmalarda meta-sentezin kapsamı ve yaşlılık alanında meta-sentez örnekleri. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim Dergisi, 21(2), 235-268. https://doi.org/10.54961/uobild.1036670
  54. Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G. ve Sandelowski, M. (2004). Qualitative metasynthesis: Reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1342-1365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304269888
  55. Timulak, L. (2014). Qualitative meta-analysis. U. Flick (Yay. haz.) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, (s. 481-495) İçinde . London: Sage.
  56. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S. ve Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
  57. Tong, A., Lowe, A., Sainsbury, P. ve Craig, J. C. (2008). Experiences of parents who have children with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Pediatrics, 121(2), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-3470
  58. Torgerson, C. (2003). Systematic reviews. London: Bloomsbury.
  59. Tricco, A., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., K. O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., … E. Straus, S. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 169(7), 467-473 . https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
  60. Welling, J. T., Árnason, Þ. ve Ólafsdottír, R. (2015). Glacier tourism: A scoping review. Tourism Geographies, 17(5), 635-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1084529
  61. Wilson, E., Mura, P., Sharif, S. P. ve Wijesinghe, S. N. (2020). Beyond the third moment? Mapping the state of qualitative tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(7), 795-810. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1568971
  62. Zettel Nalen, C. (2022). What is a Scoping Review? (2022, 5 Kasım). Erişim adresi: https://www.aje.com/arc/what-is-a-scoping-review/
  63. Zupic, I. ve Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629