“Coming to a Point”: Systematic Approaches to Integrating Qualitative Research

This roundtable session will focus on the methodological and conceptual choices involved in systematic approaches to qualitative research integration and synthesis. The growing emphasis on evidence-based practice has resulted in calls for greater investment in rigorous intervention studies, particularly in fields of practice (such as public child welfare) with little or no track record of intervention research. Although many of these fields have been the site of a good deal of qualitative research, reviews of the literature frequently note the dilemmas inherent in summarizing and/or synthesizing data from qualitative studies, including: their lack of generalizability; wide variability in study designs and underlying epistemological paradigms; differences in fidelity to analytic approaches; range of quality in depth of analysis; and the reality that many of these studies rely on convenience samples. Frequently, therefore, qualitative studies tend to be viewed more as sources of orienting and contextualizing data than as reliable sources of guidance for practice.

The dilemmas inherent in synthesizing qualitative findings are real and not easily overcome. Yet qualitative studies provide information on client and community experiences that is essential in designing, tailoring, implementing, and evaluating effective, culturally-responsive, and readily translatable interventions. It is thus both shortsighted and, ultimately, a loss to practice to not make the effort to systematically evaluate methods and findings across qualitative studies with the goal of deriving robust knowledge for use in the field.

Recognizing this, other applied disciplines, notably nursing, have broken important ground in developing methods for conducting systematic reviews of qualitative research (see e.g. Paterson et al., 2001; Thorne et al., 2004). At the same time, as meta-studies of qualitative research have proliferated, concern is emerging about the quality of these reviews, provoking thoughtful discussion about the need for greater methodological rigor in tandem with more sophisticated understandings of the nature and implications of different methodological choices (Jensen et al., 2004).

As social work scholars turn to the task of producing systematic reviews of qualitative research findings for application in practice, we should likewise strive for methodological rigor and conceptual sophistication concerning available choices and underlying epistemological issues. To this end, this roundtable will provide an opportunity for collegial discussion and critical analysis of methodological options for conducting systematic meta-studies of qualitative research. To frame and anchor the discussion, the presenters will draw on their experience in designing and conducting an integrative review of qualitative studies of parental experiences with child welfare services, including: 1) a brief overview of meta-study methods and the distinctions among them ;2) illustration of the decisions involved in selecting a methodological approach, using the child welfare study as an exemplar; 3) reflections on the opportunities and challenges inherent in integrating and synthesizing qualitative studies, based in the process and findings of this exemplar study. These brief presentations will be followed by an open discussion with roundtable participants, aimed at increasing the capacity of social welfare scholars to produce careful, conceptually sophisticated, and methodologically appropriate reviews of qualitative research.