Are you a researcher or policymaker grappling with vast, seemingly contradictory literature from diverse fields? The traditional methods of systematic review often fall short when faced with complex, heterogeneous bodies of evidence. This seminal article, “Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review,” introduces and details the innovative meta-narrative review method, offering a powerful solution to these methodological challenges.
Drawing directly from Kuhn’s influential notion of scientific paradigms, the authors developed this new approach to make sense of large datasets, such as the 1024 sources identified in their exploratory searches on the diffusion of innovations. Instead of merely summarizing, meta-narrative review aims to:
- Map “storylines” of research traditions over time: This involves tracing the influence of foundational theoretical and empirical work within specific research traditions.
- Expose and explore tensions between different research paradigms: It acknowledges that researchers in different traditions conceptualize, explain, and investigate problems differently, often using distinct criteria for judging quality. Seemingly contradictory data can then be understood as arising from these different paradigmatic lenses.
- Synthesize complex and ambiguous fields of study: By first separating and then drawing together these diverse meta-narratives, the method builds a rich, nuanced picture of the field.
The article outlines the six key phases of meta-narrative review—Planning, Search, Mapping, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Recommendations—highlighting that these are iterative rather than strictly sequential. It also emphasizes five core principles that underpin the technique:
- Pragmatism: Acknowledges the subjective and negotiable choices involved in identifying ‘story threads’ from amorphous literature, prioritizing audience needs.
- Pluralism: Recognizes that complex evidence lacks a single solution or universal theory, encouraging the exposure of tensions and diversity across traditions rather than privileging one.
- Historicity: Focuses on the sequencing of events in time to reveal the ‘plot’ of scientific progress, including breakthrough discoveries and paradigm shifts.
- Contestation: Treats heterogeneity in research questions, methods, and conclusions as valuable data, seeking epistemological explanations for conflicting findings.
- Peer Review: Stresses the importance of continuous critical feedback, especially for emergent methods and complex fields, to ensure robustness and mitigate ‘groupthink’.
This method significantly adds value to the synthesis of heterogeneous bodies of literature where scientists have investigated the ‘same’ problem in different ways, leading to seemingly contradictory findings. It moves beyond merely noting conflicting results, turning them into valuable data for systematic analysis.
Essential reading for anyone undertaking systematic reviews of complex evidence, this article provides a comprehensive and insightful framework for navigating methodological challenges and achieving a deeper, more coherent understanding of diffuse research landscapes.
Reference for the article:
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 61(2), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.00
