sh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • harvard-anglia-ruskin-university
  • apa-old-doi-prefix.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: An overview of different methodological options
Stockholm Environment Institute.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4253-1390
Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia.
University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, UK.
KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Environmental Evidence, ISSN 2047-2382, E-ISSN 2047-2382, Vol. 8, no 1, article id 24Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Qualitative research related to the human dimensions of conservation and environment is growing in quantity. Rigorous syntheses of such studies can help develop understanding and inform decision-making. They can combine findings from studies in varied or similar contexts to address questions relating to, for example, the lived experience of those affected by environmental phenomena or interventions, or to intervention implementation. Researchers in environmental management have adapted methodology for systematic reviews of quantitative research so as to address questions about the magnitude of intervention effects or the impacts of human activities or exposure. However, guidance for the synthesis of qualitative evidence in this field does not yet exist. The objective of this paper is to present a brief overview of different methods for the synthesis of qualitative research and to explore why and how reviewers might select between these. The paper discusses synthesis methods developed in other fields but applicable to environmental management and policy. These methods include thematic synthesis, framework synthesis, realist synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-ethnography. We briefly describe each of these approaches, give recommendations for the selection between them, and provide a selection of sources for further reading. © 2019 The Author(s).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2019. Vol. 8, no 1, article id 24
Keywords [en]
Critical interpretative synthesis, Framework synthesis, Meta-ethnography, Mixed methods reviews, Qualitative evidence synthesis, Realist synthesis, Thematic synthesis
National Category
Environmental Management
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-38511DOI: 10.1186/s13750-019-0168-0Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85067293333OAI: oai:DiVA.org:sh-38511DiVA, id: diva2:1332555
Funder
BONUS - Science for a better future of the Baltic Sea region, Art 185Available from: 2019-06-28 Created: 2019-06-28 Last updated: 2019-06-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Rodela, Romina

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Macura, B.Rodela, Romina
By organisation
Environmental Science
In the same journal
Environmental Evidence
Environmental Management

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 33 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • harvard-anglia-ruskin-university
  • apa-old-doi-prefix.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf