Netzwerk-Broker als interdisziplinäres Forschungsthema

Einblicke in die qualitative Metasynthese zur Aggregation und Reflektion empirischer Studien
  • Birgit Leick
  • Susanne Gretzinger
Chapter
First Online:

Zusammenfassung

Qualitative Syntheseverfahren eignen sich besonders für interdisziplinäre Forschungsthemen, wie sie in der sozialräumlichen Forschung eine lange Tradition haben. Der Beitrag beleuchtet die Metasynthese als Forschungsansatz zur Zusammenfassung, Strukturierung und Reflexion qualitativer Daten, die aus bereits durchgeführten qualitativen Fallstudien stammen. Es werden die Vorteile, aber auch die grundsätzlichen und praktischen Herausforderungen des Verfahrens anhand eines Beispiels aus der Wirtschaftsgeographie dargestellt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literatur

  1. Aitken SC, Valentine G (Hrsg) (2014) Approaches to human geography. Philosophy, theories, people, and practices. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J (2009) Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review, NCRM working paper 01/09. Economic & Social Research Council National Centre for Research Methods, Institute of Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bessant J, Rush H (1995) Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer. Res Policy 24(1):97–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00751-ECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and closure: an introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Eklinder-Frick J et al (2011) Bridging and bonding forms of social capital in a regional strategic network. Ind Mark Manag 40(6):994–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fili A, Grünberg J (2016) Business angel post-investment activities: a multi-level review. J Manag Gov 20(1):89–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-014-9296-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finfgeld DL (2003) Metasynthesis: the state of the art – so far. Qual Health Res 13(7):893–904.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303253462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finfgeld-Connett DL (2010) Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. J Adv Nurs 66(2):246–254.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05250.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanna V, Walsh K (2008) Interfirm cooperation among small manufacturing firms. Int Small Bus J 26(3):299–321.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242608088740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoon C (2013) Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: an approach to theory-building. Organ Res Methods 16(4):522–556.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113484969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Policy 35(5):715–728.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howell Major C, Savin-Baden M (2010) An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: managing the information explosion in social science research. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Huggins R (2000) The success and failure of policy-implanted inter-firm network initiatives: motivations, processes and structure. Entrepreneurship Reg Dev 12(2):111–135.  https://doi.org/10.1080/089856200283036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luthe T et al (2012) Network governance and regional resilience to climate change: empirical evidence from mountain tourism communities in the Swiss Gotthard Region. Reg Environ Change 12(4):839–854.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0294-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morgan-Trimmer S (2013) „It’s who you know“: community empowerment through network brokers. Commun Dev J 49(3):458–472.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bst049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandelowski M (2006) „Meta-jeopardy“: The crisis of representation in qualitative metasynthesis. Nurs Outlook 54(1):10–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2005.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sandelowski M et al (1997) Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health 20(4):365–371.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shen C et al (2012) Virtual brokerage and closure: network structure and social capital in a massively multiplayer online game. Commun Res 10(5):1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212455197Google Scholar
  19. Suri H (2011) Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qual Res J 11(2):63–75.  https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thorne S et al (2004) Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qual Health Res 14(10):1342–1365.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304269888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tranfield D et al (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Brit J Manag 14(3):207–222.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Verona G et al (2006) Innovation and virtual environments: towards virtual knowledge brokers. Organ Stud 27(6):765–788.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606061073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walsh D, Downe S (2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs 50(2):204–211.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03380.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Walsh D, Downe S (2006) Appraising the quality of qualitative research. Midwifery 22(2):108–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2005.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birgit Leick
    • 1
  • Susanne Gretzinger
    • 2
  1. 1.BayreuthDeutschland
  2. 2.SønderborgDänemark

Personalised recommendations