Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Since the 1990s, researchers have sought to highlight the potential, or perhaps essential, contribution that qualitative studies could make to evidence based policy and practice. Progress is being made, but is hampered by old divisions between ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ paradigms of knowledge production.
Aims: To argue that ‘configuration’ is a more meaningful conceptualisation of the contribution that ‘qualitative’ studies can make to research synthesis, rather than thinking in terms of the qualitative/quantitative divide.
Discussion: ‘Qualitative’ evidence in mixed-methods reviews has supported understanding by: helping to understand how complex interventions work; revealing features of interventions to test for variation in effects; helping to explain why interventions don’t work; revealing issues or barriers and facilitators that are not being addressed in intervention (or other) research. ‘Qualitative’ synthesis can consolidate evidence about the views, experiences and needs of various stakeholders by revealing complexity and multiplicity of perspective; and by privileging the voices and views of marginalised groups often not seen in research. The findings on which the example reviews are based originated from both qualitative and quantitative data. However, the type of originating data does not determine how they make a useful contribution to knowledge: this lies in the way in which findings are arranged (or ‘configured’), enabling us to understand and explain variation in context, perspective, participants and intervention.
Conclusion: ‘Qualitative synthesis’ has made demonstrable contributions to knowledge, often in ways which transcend the old paradigm division. We argue that it is more helpful to consider the mode (or ‘logic’) of synthesis (Sandelowski et al 2011; Gough, Thomas, Oliver 2012): the way in which both qualitative and quantitative data enable us to understand how findings may vary according to complex situations. The systematic configuration of ‘qualitative’ studies facilitates consideration of the applicability of reviews to other situations and contexts.
Aims: To argue that ‘configuration’ is a more meaningful conceptualisation of the contribution that ‘qualitative’ studies can make to research synthesis, rather than thinking in terms of the qualitative/quantitative divide.
Discussion: ‘Qualitative’ evidence in mixed-methods reviews has supported understanding by: helping to understand how complex interventions work; revealing features of interventions to test for variation in effects; helping to explain why interventions don’t work; revealing issues or barriers and facilitators that are not being addressed in intervention (or other) research. ‘Qualitative’ synthesis can consolidate evidence about the views, experiences and needs of various stakeholders by revealing complexity and multiplicity of perspective; and by privileging the voices and views of marginalised groups often not seen in research. The findings on which the example reviews are based originated from both qualitative and quantitative data. However, the type of originating data does not determine how they make a useful contribution to knowledge: this lies in the way in which findings are arranged (or ‘configured’), enabling us to understand and explain variation in context, perspective, participants and intervention.
Conclusion: ‘Qualitative synthesis’ has made demonstrable contributions to knowledge, often in ways which transcend the old paradigm division. We argue that it is more helpful to consider the mode (or ‘logic’) of synthesis (Sandelowski et al 2011; Gough, Thomas, Oliver 2012): the way in which both qualitative and quantitative data enable us to understand how findings may vary according to complex situations. The systematic configuration of ‘qualitative’ studies facilitates consideration of the applicability of reviews to other situations and contexts.