Representations of Meta-Ethnography: In Limbo in the Jungle of Misguided Paths?

Since its origin in the ethnography of education by Noblit and Hare in 1988, meta-ethnography has been molded between its qualitative research heritage as an interpretative synthesizing method and an increasing influence from systematic reviews. The eMERGe reporting guidance was introduced in 2019 to help improve the reporting of meta-ethnographies; however, the impact of this is not yet fully known, and the trustworthiness of meta-ethnographies has been challenged. Therefore, the aim of this study is to illuminate representations of meta-ethnography in the method literature in relation to the original publication by Noblit and Hare in 1988 and overviews on qualitative synthesizing methods. This meta-method study is based on published methodological research that focuses on descriptions of meta-ethnography. Using an overarching metaphor of meta-ethnography being in limbo in the jungle of misguided paths, three representations are illuminated. Meta-ethnography seems to be removed from its qualitative interpretive original tradition due to the recent impact of systematic quantitative reviews. Researchers' uncritical use of references has created a terminological mismatch risking misunderstanding and distortion in descriptions and suggested implementation. To strengthen future research, an in-depth understanding of meta-ethnography, its assumptions, and its characteristics, an interpretive application is needed. In addition, maintaining a critical attitude to secondary method references that deviate from the original interpretative epistemology and implementation is also required.