عنوان مقاله [English]
Background and Objectives: Meta-analysis is a new paradigm different from qualitative, metaphorical, and systematic review. The subjectivity of the implemented studies, the existence of heterogeneity and contradiction in the results of studies and the interpretation of the results in comparison with quantitative research have been the reasons for the formation of the meta-analysis method. Some researchers believe that in 1970s the research in the area of social science and investigating the social and cultural issues faced some challenges in regards with methodology. These challenges could be raised because of subjectivity of research, ambiguities in the results of different pieces of research, ineffective relation between the results of studies and political guidelines, intercreativity of results in comparison with quantitative research are the main reasons of these challenges. Some researchers make a signs of the development of higher education and the explosion of research reports as the reason of re-thinking about new paradigm in the methodology of social science studies in 1970s. One of the solution for this problem, was the using of mixed methodologies for the integrating of results of related pieces of research.
Methodology: The aim of this research was to investigate the theoretical foundations of Meta-analysis methodology. This paper is an analytical overview that has been developed using the documentary methodology and theoretical sources. In this research, firstly, information resources and researches in the field of meta-analysis, including articles, theses, books and web pages were identified. Then, the collected data were studied and analyzed using a descriptive-analytical approach. Finally, the results of the study were analyzed analytically in comparison with information science and science researches.
Findings: The meta-analysis method was proposed in 1967 with the aim of integrating and integrating the studies carried out in the field of social, cultural and behavioral analysis using statistical methods. In addition, systematic review, metaphysics, transcendence, and metadata are equivalent meta-analytic terms, which are fundamentally different in nature and merely beyond which qualitative research is combined and their similarities and differences are compared, their findings are translated into each other and interpreted New from their collection. Research has shown that heterogeneity of publications, heterogeneity, incomplete data, availability and availability of early-qualifying studies and studies in other languages are the most important issues and strategies for solving meta-analysis problems in information science and science, and meta-analysis in this field is rarely used. Is located. Studies in information science and science show that in terms of volume, statistical properties and quality, the necessary framework for the implementation of meta-analysis studies in this field is provided and the meta-analysis is an appropriate opportunity for scholars of this science to integrate the results of studies, develop existing theories, create new theories And provided comprehensive interpretations of the phenomena examined. The research also showed that there is no limit to the introduction of studies into the meta-analysis, and the number of studies included in the composition depends on the subject matter of the research and the goal, so that if a researcher examines a phenomenon based on the very personal experience of the subjects studied, Few studies are sufficient, but more studies are needed to measure more common phenomena.
Discussion: Information science and science as one of the branches of social sciences have a large amount of quantitative and qualitative research, and in practice there is a weak link between the results of these studies and its policies and policies. Studies in the field of information science and science have often been reviewed in the form of a meta-analysis. Researchers of this science use the systematic review method to collect raw data, to diagnose, integrate, and express simple and sequential expressions of research results. However, the number and quality of research done and the contradiction and heterogeneity in their results have made the use of the meta-analysis method more necessary. Considering that, on the one hand, the quantitative and qualitative researches carried out in the field of information science and science, taking into account the meta-criteria criteria, have been suitable conditions for entering meta-class studies, and, on the other hand, it is possible to employ a wide range of statistical methods in meta-analysis such as the size of the effect, Determining the significance level and deviation from the standard of effect size. Therefore, the field for researchers in this science is provided to integrate the results of studies, develop existing theories, create new theories, strengthen the certainty of cause and effect relationship, and provide comprehensive interpretations of the phenomena examined. Also, heterogeneity of studies, lack of consistency, incomplete data, access to early studies, and quantitative and qualitative data on the progress of knowledge and information science experts in the use of meta-analysis, should be addressed further.
Ankem, K. (2005). Approaches to Meta-Analysis: a Guide For LIS Researchers. Library and information Science Research. 27,2,164-167.
Armaz, A. (1389). Inference of semi-parametric algebraic statistics of meta-analysis models with random effects. MS Degree Thesis, Allameh Tabatabai'e University. (in Persian)
Bondasot, E., & Hall, E.O.C. (2008). Callanges in Approaching Meta-Synthesis Research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 113-121.
Delavar, A. (1380). Theoretical and practical foundations in the humanities and social sciences. Tehran: Rosh Publisher. (in Persian)
Dixen, M. W. (2011). Interactive Approaches to Qualitative and Quantitive Evidence; Retrieved Nowember 15, 2016, from: http://www.nice.org.uk.
Doyle, I. H. (2003). Synthesis Through Meta Ethnography, Paradoxes, Enhancement, and Possibilities. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 321-344.
Haug, J. D. (1997). Physicians’ Preferences for Information Sources: A Meta–Analytic Study. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 85 (3), 223 -232.
Hwang, M.I. & Lin, J.W. (1999). Information Dimension, Information Overload and Decision Quality. Journal of Information Science, 25 (3), 213 – 218.
Finfgeld, D.L. (2003). Metasynthesis: the State of The Art- so far. Qualitative Health Research, 7 (13), 893-904.
Jenson, L. Allen, M. (1996). Meta-synthesis Of Qualitative Findings. Qualitative Health Research. 4(6), 553-560.
Merens, R,A. & Morales. M. (2004). Los Meta- Analysis: Aproximate Utilesparasucomprension. La Colaboration Cochrane en Cuba, Parte VII. Retrieved Now 15, 2016, from: http:// eprints.Rclis.Org/archive/ 00002680.
Noblit, G.W. & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta–ethnography: Synthesizing, Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA: saye.
Refahi Shirpak, KH. (1389). Metacentesis of qualitative research in health sciences. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology, 1 (6). (in Persian)
Rosenthal, R. (1986). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Science Research Sage Publications: Beverly Hills. Educational Researcher, 15(8), 18-20.
Salang, M.M.C. (1996). A Meta–Analysis of Studies on User Information Needs and Their Relationship to Information Retrieval. Journal of Philippine Librarianship, 18 (2), 36 – 56.
Sandeloeski, M. & Barrose, J. (2003). Creating Meta-Summaries of Qualitative Findings. Nursing Resarch, 52 (4), 226-233.
Saxton, B.M. (2006). Meta-Analysis in Library and Information Science: Method, History, and Recommendation For Reporting Research. Library trends, 55 (1), 158-170.
Schell, C.L. & Rathe, R.J. (1992). Meta–analysis: A tool for Medical and Scientific Discoveries. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 80 (3), 219.
Schreiber, R., Crooks, D., Stern, P., & Morse, J. M. (1997). Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 311-326.
Sharifi, H. & Sharifi, N. (1383). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Sokhan Publisher. (in Persian)
Thompson, S. G., & Pocock, S. J. (1991). Can meta-analyses be trusted?. The Lancet, 338(8775), 1127-1130.
Trahan, E. (1993). Applying Meta–Analysis to Library and Information Science Research. Library Quarterly, 63 (1), 73 – 91.
Urquhart, C. (2010). Systematic Reviewing, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Synthesis for Evidence – Based Library and Information Science. Information Research, 15 (3).
XU, Y. (2008). Methodological Issues and Challenges in Data Collection and Analysis of Qualitative Meta–Synthesis. Asian Nursing Research, 2 (3), 173-183.
Vadadhir, A. (1380). Extending the results of qualitative studies and cultural studies: reality or illusion. Barg-e-Farhang, 22, 24-45. (in Persian)
Wantland, D. J., Portillo, C. J., Holzemer, W. L., Slaughter, R., & McGhee, E. M. (2004). The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. Journal of medical Internet research, 6(4), e40.