"Distorted into clarity": A methodological case study illustrating the paradox of systematic review

Margarete Sandelowski; Corrine I. Voils; Julie Barroso; Eun Jeong Lee

doi:10.1002/nur.20278

"Distorted into clarity": A methodological case study illustrating the paradox of systematic review

Margarete Sandelowski, Corrine I. Voils, Julie Barroso, Eun Jeong Lee

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

Systematic review is typically viewed in the health sciences as the most objective-that is, rigorous, transparent, and reproducible-method for summarizing the results of research. Yet, recent scholarship has shown systematic review to involve feats of interpretation producing less certain, albeit valuable, results. We found this to be the case when we tried to overcome the resistance to synthesis of a set of qualitative and quantitative findings on stigma in HIV-positive women. These findings were difficult to combine largely because of fuzzy conceptualizations of stigma and the volume of unique quantitative findings. Our encounter with findings resistant to synthesis heightened our awareness of the extent to which all systematic reviews are accomplished by practices that paradoxically "distort [research findings] into clarity."

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	454-465
Number of pages	12
Journal	Research in Nursing and Health
Volume	31
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20278
State	Published - Oct 2008
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

HIV-positive women
Qualitative research synthesis
Quantitative research synthesis
Research methods
Research synthesis
Stigma
Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Nursing(all)

Access to Document

10.1002/nur.20278

Cite this

@article{7810c64f470b4aa1ab1f31093266169a,

title = "{"}Distorted into clarity{"}: A methodological case study illustrating the paradox of systematic review",

abstract = "Systematic review is typically viewed in the health sciences as the most objective-that is, rigorous, transparent, and reproducible-method for summarizing the results of research. Yet, recent scholarship has shown systematic review to involve feats of interpretation producing less certain, albeit valuable, results. We found this to be the case when we tried to overcome the resistance to synthesis of a set of qualitative and quantitative findings on stigma in HIV-positive women. These findings were difficult to combine largely because of fuzzy conceptualizations of stigma and the volume of unique quantitative findings. Our encounter with findings resistant to synthesis heightened our awareness of the extent to which all systematic reviews are accomplished by practices that paradoxically {"}distort [research findings] into clarity.{"}",

keywords = "HIV-positive women, Qualitative research synthesis, Quantitative research synthesis, Research methods, Research synthesis, Stigma, Systematic review",

author = "Margarete Sandelowski and Voils, {Corrine I.} and Julie Barroso and Lee, {Eun Jeong}",

year = "2008",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1002/nur.20278",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "31",

pages = "454--465",

journal = "Research in Nursing and Health",

issn = "0160-6891",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Distorted into clarity"

T2 - A methodological case study illustrating the paradox of systematic review

AU - Sandelowski, Margarete

AU - Voils, Corrine I.

AU - Barroso, Julie

AU - Lee, Eun Jeong

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - Systematic review is typically viewed in the health sciences as the most objective-that is, rigorous, transparent, and reproducible-method for summarizing the results of research. Yet, recent scholarship has shown systematic review to involve feats of interpretation producing less certain, albeit valuable, results. We found this to be the case when we tried to overcome the resistance to synthesis of a set of qualitative and quantitative findings on stigma in HIV-positive women. These findings were difficult to combine largely because of fuzzy conceptualizations of stigma and the volume of unique quantitative findings. Our encounter with findings resistant to synthesis heightened our awareness of the extent to which all systematic reviews are accomplished by practices that paradoxically "distort [research findings] into clarity."

AB - Systematic review is typically viewed in the health sciences as the most objective-that is, rigorous, transparent, and reproducible-method for summarizing the results of research. Yet, recent scholarship has shown systematic review to involve feats of interpretation producing less certain, albeit valuable, results. We found this to be the case when we tried to overcome the resistance to synthesis of a set of qualitative and quantitative findings on stigma in HIV-positive women. These findings were difficult to combine largely because of fuzzy conceptualizations of stigma and the volume of unique quantitative findings. Our encounter with findings resistant to synthesis heightened our awareness of the extent to which all systematic reviews are accomplished by practices that paradoxically "distort [research findings] into clarity."

KW - HIV-positive women

KW - Qualitative research synthesis

KW - Quantitative research synthesis

KW - Research methods

KW - Research synthesis

KW - Stigma

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=52449097574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=52449097574&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/nur.20278

DO - 10.1002/nur.20278

M3 - Review article

C2 - 18324678

AN - SCOPUS:52449097574

VL - 31

SP - 454

EP - 465

JO - Research in Nursing and Health

JF - Research in Nursing and Health

SN - 0160-6891

IS - 5

ER -

"Distorted into clarity": A methodological case study illustrating the paradox of systematic review

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this