Thanks Gill for your response. As I read the original papers on MNR, the “research tradition” is the terminology used by Trish G., which is defined as “a series of linked studies, each building on what has gone before
and taking place within a coherent paradigm (that is, within a shared set of assumptions and preferred methodological approach shared by a group of scientists)” (reference - metanarrative training materials). The unit of analysis is the “unfolding storyline
of a research tradition over time” (ref. Storylines of diffusion paper). In the original meta-narrative review, 13 research traditions (not disciplines) were identified which tended to overlap with particular disciplines, but not completely. For example,
marketing and development studies were two research traditions, represented by multiple disciplines. So, my issue is not how to categorize the traditions, nor concern that I’ve got the traditions wrong. I am interested in seeing how others have dealt with
(and written about) the contestations in the literature (contestation is one of 6 principles of MNR and happens to be a huge element of my review), and how they have applied the four synthesis techniques of paradigm bridging, paradigm bracketing, interplay,
and meta-theorizing. In our study, we have used these techniques in a particular way but I would be very interested in seeing how others have used and written about these. We have essentially been flying by the seat of our pants because we have not found any
clear examples in the literature that demonstrate the “how to”, nor is there anything in the training materials.
Marjorie
Hi all
I’ve never attempted a MNR and I’m hoping this question might prompt someone with expertise to respond. But I idly wondered in response to this discussion, is
(part of) the struggle here that MNR was designed to investigate different disciplines’
approaches to an issue (I remember Trish G using the example of an engineer and an anthropologist and what they’d ‘see’ and say in relation to a bridge over a river), whereas a couple of you have talked about different
traditions (which in my mind might be philosophical traditions and nowhere near as clear-cut, because philosophical, political, ethical etc positions blend at the edges)?
Cheers
Gill
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Feltham, Christina
Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2017 9:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Meta-narrative review
Hi Both,
I am also doing a MNR for the first stage of my PhD considering maternal obesity, with a working title of:-
The makings of a modern maternal obesity epidemic: A meta-narrative review of what it means to be a woman and to be fat and pregnant.
Your email is timely as I am also having the same difficulties as yourself in finding good examples of published studies.
I am at the data extraction and synthesis stage and I am having difficulties in interpretating the different concepts between the traditions.
Any discussions with yourselves would be gratefully received.
Kind regards
Christina
Second year PhD student, University of Central Lancashire, UK
I am also doing a MNR as the first stage of my PhD on gender equity and maternal mortality. I also tried to find good examples of published studies and found
only a few that really seemed to be MNR and use the 'tradition' as the unit of analysis. I'm happy to share those I found and would be interested to see if you found any others. I'd also be happy to link up off the listserve to discuss MNR methods as I have
found it quite hard to keep focused and define my methods.
Public Health Physician and PhD student, Sydney, Australia
Sent from my iPad
Hi Folks. I know that most of the interest on this listserv has been on realist methodologies. But RAMESES I was also about Meta-narrative review (MNR). Very
little has come up in the discussion here about MNR. I have led two CIHR-funded MNR projects in Canada, and am just waiting to hear if a third study will be funded. On one of these, we are trying to finish up our MNR on the harm reduction potential of e-cigarettes
or vaping devices. The emphasis on contestations in the MNR methodology has become pretty salient in this review and we are currently now writing a paper reporting on these findings. We have done a search looking for published examples of MNR but not too
many have turned up. I wonder if anyone in this group can recommend or share any published papers in which MNR was the methodology. Of course, we have the original studies by Greenhalgh et al, the standards and training materials, but only a few examples
of published studies. More examples would be very helpful. Thank you so much.
Marjorie MacDonald
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC Canada
University of Cumbria is a Company Limited by Guarantee, Registered in England & Wales No. 06033238. Registered Office: University of Cumbria, Fusehill Street, Carlisle, CA1 2HH. Telephone 01228 616234.
Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and
highlight the error.
Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
