השוואת שיטות

	מתודולוגיית קבוצת מיקוד	שיטות לסינתזה של עדויות איכותניות
תחום	מחקר איכותני	מחקר איכותני
משפחה	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
שנת המקור	1956	1988
הוגה השיטה	Robert K. Merton and Paul F. Lazarsfeld	George Noblit and Dwight Hare
סוג	Method	Method
מקור מכונן	Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 978-0803954366	Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 978-0803931725
כינויים	FGD, focus group discussion, group interview	qualitative meta-synthesis, meta-ethnography, thematic synthesis, systematic review of qualitative studies
קשורות	4	4
תקציר	Focus group discussions are a qualitative research method in which a trained moderator guides a small group (typically 6–12 participants) through structured or semi-structured discussion of a specific topic or product. Developed by Merton and Lazarsfeld in the 1950s for market research, focus groups are now widely used in health sciences, education, social sciences, and policy research. The method leverages group interaction to generate rich, contextual insights that individual interviews may not reveal.	Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is a systematic method for combining and interpreting findings from multiple qualitative research studies to generate higher-level understanding and theory. Different approaches—meta-ethnography, thematic synthesis, meta-narrative review, critical interpretive synthesis—each have distinct philosophical underpinnings and analytical procedures. Introduced by Noblit and Hare (1988) with meta-ethnography, qualitative synthesis has evolved alongside systematic reviews of quantitative research. Unlike quantitative meta-analysis, which pools numerical effect sizes, qualitative synthesis integrates concepts, themes, and interpretations from primary studies, identifying patterns, conflicts, and emergent theory. QES is increasingly used in health research, social sciences, and education to understand complex phenomena, translate research into practice, and identify gaps in evidence.