Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Meta-etnografie de cartografiere a domeniului× | Revizuire de tip scoping× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Scientometrie | Scientometrie |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1988 (meta-ethnography); field-mapping application 2000s–2010s | 2005 |
| Autorul original≠ | Noblit & Hare (meta-ethnography base); field-mapping frame developed in review methodology literature | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Tip≠ | Qualitative evidence synthesis with field-mapping scope | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Sage. ISBN: 978-0803930599 | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | field-mapping qualitative synthesis, scoping meta-ethnography, field-mapping qualitative meta-synthesis, landscape meta-ethnography | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Înrudite | 6 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | Field-mapping meta-ethnography combines the breadth of a field-mapping (scoping) review with the interpretive synthesis power of meta-ethnography. It first maps the full landscape of qualitative studies on a topic to understand what has been studied and how, then applies Noblit and Hare's seven-step meta-ethnographic synthesis to generate second-order and third-order constructs that represent the accumulated qualitative evidence across that field. | A scoping review is a systematic evidence-synthesis method that maps the breadth and nature of research on a topic — identifying key concepts, evidence types, and gaps — without necessarily appraising study quality or pooling effect sizes. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by Levac and colleagues (2010), it is particularly valuable for emerging or heterogeneous fields where a full systematic review would be premature or infeasible. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|