The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Advancements in Research Synthesis Methods: From a Methodologically Inclusive Perspective
Abstract
The dominant literature on research synthesis methods has positivist and neo-positivist origins. In recent years, the landscape of research synthesis methods has changed rapidly to become inclusive. This article highlights methodologically inclusive advancements in research synthesis methods. Attention is drawn to insights from interpretive, critical, and participatory traditions for enhancing trustworthiness, utility, and/or emancipatory potential for research syntheses. Also noted is a paucity of the literature that builds connections between methodologically diverse segments of the literature on research synthesis methods. Salient features of a methodologically inclusive research synthesis (MIRS) framework are described. The MIRS framework has been conceptualized by distilling and synthesizing ideas, theories, and strategies from the extensive literatures on research synthesis methods and primary research methods. Rather than prescribe how a research synthesis should be conducted or evaluated, this article attempts to open spaces, raise questions, explore possibilities, and contest taken-for-granted practices.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,626
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
(2001) · Cited by 25,534
Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 14,874
Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.)
Sharp, C. A. (2003) · Evaluation Journal of Australasia · doi:10.1177/1035719x0300300213 · Cited by 10,489
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Handbook of qualitative research
Griffin, T. F. (1999) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199907)16:4<371::aid-mar7>3.0.co;2-k · Cited by 9,037
SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · doi:10.4135/9781506335193 · Cited by 6,215
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890 · cited 2×
“For instance, many meta-analysts do not take into consideration qualitative research in their definition of the terms primary research, secondary research, and research synthesis (e.g., Cooper & Hedges, 1994b; Glass, 1976).”
Background
Cited by
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019) · Journal of Planning Education and Research · doi:10.1177/0739456x17723971 · Cited by 3,467
Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis
Suri, H. (2011) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.3316/qrj1102063 · Cited by 2,284
Self-citationImproving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance
France, E. F., Cunningham, M., Ring, N., Uny, I., Duncan, E. A. S., Jepson, R. G., Maxwell, M., Roberts, R. J., Turley, R. L., Booth, A., et al. (2019) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 · Cited by 469
Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research
Berrang-Ford, L., Pearce, T., & Ford, J. D. (2015) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0708-7 · Cited by 474
Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education
Bearman, M., & Dawson, P. (2013) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12092 · Cited by 357
Metadata
- Authors
- Suri, H., & Clarke, D.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 395-430
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2149491422
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 125
- FWCI
- 11.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Advancements in Research Synthesis Methods: From a Methodologically Inclusive Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3102/0034654308326349
- The paper
- Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in Research Synthesis Methods: From a Methodologically Inclusive Perspective. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326349
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
