Reconciling disparate data to determine the right answer: A grounded theory of meta analysts' reasoning in meta‐analysis

Reconciling disparate data to determine the right answer: A grounded theory of meta analysts'... While the systematic review process is intended to maximize objectivity and limit researchers' biases, examples remain of discordant recommendations from meta‐analyses. Current guidelines to explore discrepancies assume the variation is produced by methodological differences and thus focus only on the study process. Because heterogeneity of interpretation also occurs when experts examine the same data, our purpose was to examine if there are reasoning differences, ie, in how information is processed and valued. We created simulated meta‐analyses based on idealized randomized studies (ie, perfect studies with no bias) to ensure differences in interpretations could only be due to reasoning. We recruited published meta‐analysts using purposeful variables. We conducted 3 audio‐recorded interviews per participant using structured and semi‐structured interviews, with paraphrasing and reflective listening to enhance and verify responses. Recruitment and analysis of transcripts and field notes followed the principles of grounded theory (eg, theoretical saturation, constant comparative analysis). Results show the complexity of meta‐analytic reasoning. At each step of the process, participants attempted to reconcile disparate forms of knowledge to determine a right answer (moral concern) and accurately draw a treatment effect (epistemological concern). The reasoning processes often shifted between considering the meta‐analysis as if the data were whole, and as if the data were discrete components (individual studies). These findings highlight paradigmatic tensions regarding the epistemological premises of meta‐analysis, resembling previous historical investigations of the functioning of scientific communities. In understanding why different meta‐analysts interpret data differently, it may be unrealistic to expect objective homogenous recommendations based on meta‐analyses. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Research Synthesis Methods Wiley

Reconciling disparate data to determine the right answer: A grounded theory of meta analysts' reasoning in meta‐analysis

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/reconciling-disparate-data-to-determine-the-right-answer-a-grounded-Yk1U3LTpG0
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN
1759-2879
eISSN
1759-2887
D.O.I.
10.1002/jrsm.1258
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

While the systematic review process is intended to maximize objectivity and limit researchers' biases, examples remain of discordant recommendations from meta‐analyses. Current guidelines to explore discrepancies assume the variation is produced by methodological differences and thus focus only on the study process. Because heterogeneity of interpretation also occurs when experts examine the same data, our purpose was to examine if there are reasoning differences, ie, in how information is processed and valued. We created simulated meta‐analyses based on idealized randomized studies (ie, perfect studies with no bias) to ensure differences in interpretations could only be due to reasoning. We recruited published meta‐analysts using purposeful variables. We conducted 3 audio‐recorded interviews per participant using structured and semi‐structured interviews, with paraphrasing and reflective listening to enhance and verify responses. Recruitment and analysis of transcripts and field notes followed the principles of grounded theory (eg, theoretical saturation, constant comparative analysis). Results show the complexity of meta‐analytic reasoning. At each step of the process, participants attempted to reconcile disparate forms of knowledge to determine a right answer (moral concern) and accurately draw a treatment effect (epistemological concern). The reasoning processes often shifted between considering the meta‐analysis as if the data were whole, and as if the data were discrete components (individual studies). These findings highlight paradigmatic tensions regarding the epistemological premises of meta‐analysis, resembling previous historical investigations of the functioning of scientific communities. In understanding why different meta‐analysts interpret data differently, it may be unrealistic to expect objective homogenous recommendations based on meta‐analyses.

Journal

Research Synthesis MethodsWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off