Reflect on the Process

The final step of this meta-synthesis was the reflection process regarding data analysis, its interpretation, and new explorations that arose from the research findings. Major and Savin- Baden (2010) emphasized that self-reflection is an inevitable part of meta-synthesis, both during the final stage of the research and throughout each step of the meta-synthesis process.

The unique format of meta-synthesis offers a proper balance between the following three components: “an objective framework, which includes the selection, inclusion, and appraisal of studies; a rigorously scientific approach to data analysis; and the necessary contribution of the researcher’s subjectivity in the construction of the final work” (Lachal, Revah-Levy, Orri, & Moro, 2017, p. 8). The researcher’s subjective perspective was a distinctive feature of this qualitative methodology that facilitated original insights and, as a result, provided unique contributions to the research subject.

Ethical Considerations

Qualitative meta-synthesis differs from other traditional qualitative inquiries that usually require a close interaction with a sample population, or human resources, and as a result, demand careful consideration of all possible risks for individuals’ confidentiality, harm, and/or

mistreatment during the research process. Due to the fact that the main object of this meta- synthesis was data that is publicly available, the issues of confidentiality are of no concern and there was no need for the study to undergo a formal ethical review for approval (NLU, 2020).

Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations Methodological assumptions

Qualitative meta-synthesis is a relatively new methodology that is currently gaining in popularity with researchers and scholars.

In reflections regarding the foundational idea of qualitative meta-synthesis, Thorne (2017) stated the main assumption behind the genesis of the qualitative meta-synthesis is that the method evokes the interest and attention of qualitative scholars to a specific phenomenon by “entering them into a collective interpretive dialogue” that may generate new insights and knowledge (p. 3). In this study, that emerging method provided an opportunity to consider the discussed phenomenon from different disciplinary angles, theories, and methodologies that had the potential to create a critical perspective, unlimited by a single subjective point of view.

Limitations

The chosen research methodology had several limitations that could have potentially impacted the results. One of the limitations of qualitative meta-synthesis as a methodological approach is the fact that, despite the growing interest in this research design, there is still no gold standard for conducting this type of research and for reporting meta-synthesis in a

standardized way (Mohammed, Moles, & Chen, 2016). As a result, the lack of clarity begets debates and controversies in the research community. Thorne (2017) expressed her concern that the absence of a clear theoretical foundation for qualitative meta-synthesis research brought the current generation of qualitative researchers to “a number of problematic

assumptions and misconceptions” (p. 5) regarding meta-synthesis design which, in turn, led to a faulty logic that can put this effective methodology and its trustworthiness at risk.

Another limitation of meta-synthesis that is often debated by researchers is the

acknowledgement of the difficulties in measuring the quality of each research study included in the qualitative meta-synthesis (Erwin, Brotherson, & Summers, 2011; Thorne, Jensen,

Kearney, et al., 2004). There is a lack of agreement regarding the criteria for quality judgment that makes meta-synthesis an object for endless debates regarding its validity and reliability (Erwin, Brotherson, & Summers, 2011; Thorne, 2017; Lachal, Revah-Levy, Orri, & Moro, 2017).

Finally, several researchers noted that any type of meta-synthesis research has a tendency to rapidly go out of date (Schick-Makaroff, MacDonald, Plummer, et al., 2016; Finfgeld-Connett, 2018). From that point of view, a limitation of this meta-synthesis was in its time limited value. The status of accreditation systems in counseling training programs around Europe is changing constantly, due to the development of counseling as a profession and training programs as a reflection of those changes. As a result, this research seems to be on point identifying the phenomenon in a specific time frame. However, the significance of this study was limited by time since the subject of this meta-synthesis was dynamic and

Delimitations

Methodological delimitations of this research are sets of boundaries that can be arranged and controlled in order to be able to complete this study. This study was conducted on the frame of qualitative meta-synthesis design by conducting a review, creating a process of synthesis, and through the interpretation of qualitative data that discussed the issues of accreditation standards and systems of counseling training programs in the USA and Europe.

Summary

The purpose of this chapter was to thoroughly explain the methodology selected to garner data intended to answer the two research questions. The presentation of a research design, sample selection, applied instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedure detailed the specific way in which this research was conducted. Qualitative meta-synthesis methodology was used to explore how European standards for the accreditation of counseling training programs compare to the CACREP standards and to each other.

Meta-synthesis design delivers a well-structured platform to review, decode, and analyze a large pool of data regarding standards for the accreditation of counseling training programs in the United States and Europe in a comprehensive way and to analyze that data coherently. Meta- synthesis is aimed “not simply to report similarities” (Paterson, Thorne, Canam, & Jillings, 2001, p. 111) of some specific features that were found in the literature regarding a research

phenomenon, but to explore the research subject intensely. In order to manipulate a wide range of qualitative data effectively, specific criteria for a sample selection were determined and applied.

The criterion-based sampling selection process was intended to choose target settings to specify the area of the research inquiry. The settings of this meta-synthesis are accreditation bodies and standards for counseling training programs in the United States and Europe. The sample size was determined by 5 site selections: Ireland, Malta, United Kingdom, United States, and the European Association for Counseling.

The process of data collection and analysis was thoroughly described by explaining the selected instrumentation such as a literature review and requests for information. The

methodological strategy for conducting meta-synthesis conduction offered by Major and Savin- Baden (2010) was selected to lead the data collection and analysis process. Also, the procedure of theming classification was provided and explained.

Chapter Three also addressed the issues of validity and reliability of this meta-synthesis study by reflecting and assessing both the study’s trustworthiness and the quality. Ethical considerations were explained as well.

The purpose of Chapter Four is to provide the results of this research and to validate that the selected methodology of qualitative meta-synthesis described in Chapter Three was

appropriately applied and followed. The next chapter comprehensively explains the procedure of data analysis that were followed through the detailed description of the findings.