 |
 |
Hi Paula. As the PI on the one funded meta-narrative review by CIHR (if there really was only one - I am surprised), and as a former member on the knowledge synthesis review panel at CIHR, what I can tell you is that the reason there has only been almost no funded meta-narrative reviews is that (up to the time I came off the review committee) there had been almost no applications for this type of review. I believe the committee and CIHR is sympathetic to and supportive of all types of review, including meta-narrative, if the proposal is a good one. Given the currency of your topic, I would say you have a good shot at getting funding if you write a kick-ass proposal. The challenge is that in the new revised application, the page length of the application is very short, so you have almost no space to make your case, describe your methods etc. But you are right that having a good rationale and clear questions is very important. The methods section is also critical, as is the active engagement of knowledge users. Don't know if this helps. I will leave the rest of this group to respond to your questions related to output because your KT plan is also important to the panel. We are just waiting to hear in October whether another meta-narrative review proposal we submitted will be successful. Marjorie MacDonald University of Victoria -----Original Message----- From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paula Rowland Sent: September-19-14 6:29 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: the "so what?" question in meta-narrative reviews Hello all, Thank you for the opportunity to join this interesting list serve! I have really enjoyed reading through the various threads. Rather than continue to lurk from my small corner of the world in Toronto, I've decided to enter the conversation by asking a question. I've been working in health care for a while, but am a very recent PhD. My research is in the intersections of policy and practice within health care organizations. I pull from theory and methods from organizational studies and sociology. My current research is on "patient engagement" at the level of health care organizations. I am drafting a proposal for a knowledge synthesis. I would like to get my mind around the various paradigms and research traditions that are constituting historical and current literature on "patient engagement" for the purpose of informing organizational policies and programs. As a social scientist, the tensions and paradoxes involved in the different ways the "patient" is constructed (as a citizen and a consumer), how implementation of these programs are considered (sometimes as a transactional exchange of knowledge, sometimes as a process of relationships, sometimes both), and how these programs are evaluated (I have seen attempts at quasi-experiemental designs that would 'black-box' the entire process of engagement and treat the advisor as a variable that is either present or not) --- it is abundantly clear to me that exploring these tensions and how they manifest in organizational programs is a useful exercise. I would like to try my hand a meta-narrative review to help me unpack some of these tensions. In looking at the funding body I am apply to (CIHR), I see that they have only funded 1 meta-narrative review. I imagine that I need to do a particularly good job of explaining why my questions are important, why the methodology makes sense, and how important the research will be. To that end, I am finding myself in a translation problem. The value of the research is very clear to me. But --- I wonder if I am doing enough to explain the potential impact to the reviewers. They are likely to be a mix of policy makers and traditional systematic reviewers. Does anyone have any experience and/or readings they could share that would help me describe the potential impact/importance of a meta-narrative review? I am looking for some help thinking through the "so what" question so that my rationale is more clear. I think it might be a bit lost in my jargon and enthusiasm right now. Other CIHR funded reviews tended to produce decision making frameworks. I am not sure I can sign up for that kind of output???? If not, how do I explain the potential significance of the research in the absence of such tangible, concrete tools? Thanks in advance for any direction. And I am very much looking forward to ongoing conversation with this group! Cheers Paula