Premium
“Distorted into clarity”: A methodological case study illustrating the paradox of systematic review
Author(s) -
Sandelowski Margarete,
Voils Corrine I.,
Barroso Julie,
Lee EunJeong
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
research in nursing and health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.836
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1098-240X
pISSN - 0160-6891
DOI - 10.1002/nur.20278
Subject(s) - clarity , scholarship , set (abstract data type) , psychology , interpretation (philosophy) , stigma (botany) , systematic review , qualitative research , social psychology , medline , epistemology , sociology , computer science , social science , political science , psychiatry , biology , biochemistry , philosophy , law , programming language
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.” © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Res Nurs Health 31:454–465, 2008