Epistemological pluralism in research synthesis methods

Abstract

The purpose of research synthesis is to produce new knowledge by making explicit connections and tensions between individual study reports that were not visible before. Every effort of synthesizing research is inevitably premised on certain epistemological assumptions. It is crucial that research synthesists reflect critically on how their epistemological positioning enables them to pursue certain purposes while preventing them from pursuing other purposes. The literature on research synthesis methods is dominated by publications premised on positivist assumptions. The rhetoric of systematic reviews, best-evidence synthesis and What Works Clearinghouse privileges syntheses with positivist orientations. Contesting the hegemony of positivist research syntheses, this paper makes a case for research syntheses that are informed by diverse epistemological orientations. It illuminates how research syntheses with distinct epistemological orientations can serve complementary, equally worthwhile, purposes.

Keywords:

• research synthesis
• qualitative research
• methodologically inclusive research synthesis
• meta-analysis
• meta-synthesis

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on my PhD dissertation in which I developed a Methodologically Inclusive Research Synthesis (MIRS) framework. I would like to thank Professor David Clarke, Dr Gaell Hildebrand, and Dr Darrel Caulley for their supervision and support during this project.