Special issue on Qualitative and Integrative Meta-Synthesis and Meta-Analysis

Special Issue Editors: 

Heidi M. Levitt, PhD, University of Massachusetts Boston, Email: heidi.levitt@umb.edu

Tomáš Řiháček, PhD, Masaryk University, Email: rihacek@fss.muni.cz

Ladislav Timulak, PhD, Trinity College Dublin, Email: timulakl@tcd.ie

Submission deadlines

February 28, 2024: Letter of intent deadline

March 31, 2025: Invitations to submit will be sent out
August 1, 2025: Manuscript submission deadline

Background

Although they originated in other disciplines, qualitative meta-analytic methods (also called qualitative meta-syntheses) are growing in use within the field of psychology.  By aggregating knowledge from primary qualitative studies, they generate an understanding of the state of findings in a qualitative literature.   Integrative mixed methods meta-analyses (IMMMA; also called integrative meta-analyses, mixed methods systemic reviews, or critical interpretive synthesis) remain rare in psychology, but the use of these methods is increasing.  These methods generate reviews that integrate quantitative and qualitative findings together and benefit from the strengths of both forms of analysis.  

In this special issue in Qualitative Psychology (IF: 11.7), we are interested in papers that use qualitative methods within or that make methodological contributions to the use of meta-syntheses, qualitative meta-analyses or integrative meta-analyses of psychologically-relevant literatures.  Research using these methods are highly regarded in our field.  They often are highly cited and are recognized by awards for valuable contributions (e.g., Chircop Coleiro et al., 2023; O’Malley et al., 2023; Wu & Levitt, 2022).  They are increasingly seen as a necessary component in an adequate review of an area of research (e.g., Levitt et al., 2024 on the development of clinical guidance).

All these methods have great utility and can address an assortment of goals.  They can aid in the generation of practical guidance for research and practice and in developing recommendations for education, activism, and advocacy.  Varied forms of qualitative and integrative meta-analyses have been put forward, each entailing prescribed sets of procedures.  There are now many examples and sets of instructions on how to conduct and report these methods that have emerged within psychology (e.g., APA, 2020; Levitt, 2018, 2024; Timulak, 2009; Timulak & Creaner, 2022).  This special issue calls for papers that either exemplify the use of one of these methods or that address methodological issues pertaining to their use.

Relevant topics include:

-       Empirical qualitative meta-syntheses or meta-analyses that integrate a body of literature, such as:

o   Qualitative meta-analyses/meta-syntheses of qualitative research on disorders and psychological problems (e.g., depression, suicidality), and other mental health concerns.

o   Qualitative meta-analyses/meta-syntheses of qualitative research focused psychosocial problems (e.g., sequelae of experiences of racism in school).

o   Qualitative meta-analyses of change processes in clinical work (e.g., insight, cultural empathy, genuineness, self-actualization)

-       Methodological contributions on how to engage in procedural aspects of qualitative meta-syntheses or meta-analyses, such as:

o   How to use these methods within a research team

o   How to adapt analytic methods for research on a hard-to-study topic

o   Issues of meta-analytic researchers’ reflexivity and primary researchers’ situatedness within meta-analyses

o   How to analyze with large datasets

o   Methodological papers on quantitative meta-analytic processes are not in keeping with this issue topic, which is focused on the use of qualitative methods in research synthesis and integration.

-       Empirical contributions that use IMMMA or other mixed methods review methods, such as:

o   Integrative meta-analyses of qualitative research on disorders and psychological problems (e.g., depression, suicidality), and other mental health concerns.

o   Integrative meta-analyses on change processes that occur in psychotherapy (e.g., alliance ruptures, empathy, transference analysis)

o   Integrative meta-analyses of research focused on psychosocial problems (e.g., autistic clients’ experiences of ablism in psychotherapy).

Expression of interest submissions should include:

-       1-page max, single spaced

-       A tentative title

-       A statement of whether the article is methodological or empirical in nature.

-       If empirical: A description of the scope of the review, the method used, the number of articles included in the review, the expected contribution to the content area.

-       If methodological: A description of the form of the methodological contribution, a description of any content area/examples, the methodological contribution of the paper.

-       Affiliation and contact information for all authors.

-       Please type “QP Special Issue” in subject line and send to Heidi.Levitt@umb.edu by February 28th, 2025.

Final submission instructions:

The special issue editors will review the expressions of interest, and a selection of these will be invited to submit a full manuscript. The full manuscripts will go through a peer-review process, and decisions will be made by the editor.

If you are invited to submit a full manuscript, please follow the standard author guidelines of Qualitative Psychology.  Papers should be formatted in line with the 7th Edition of the Publication Manual of APA. There is no word count, but the maximum page limit is 50 pages, double-spaced, including all references, figures, and tables.  Papers should be submitted via the QP online manuscript portal by August 1st, 2025.  Please select that the paper is intended for this special issue on qualitative meta-analyses in the process of submitting your manuscript.  See journal website for further submission details and submission portal at: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/qua

References & Resources

Resources for How to Conduct Qualitative and Integrative Mixed Methods Meta-Analyses

American Psychological Association (APA). (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 2020 (7th ed.).  American Psychological Association.

Levitt, H. M. (2018). How to conduct a qualitative meta-analysis: Tailoring methods to enhance methodological integrity. Psychotherapy Research, 28(3), 367-378, doi: 10.1080/10503307.2018.1447708

Levitt, H. M. (2024). How to conduct an integrative mixed methods meta-analysis: A tutorial for the systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Advance online publication. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000675

Levitt, H. M., Hamburger, A., Hill, C. E., McLeod, J., Pascual-Leone, A., Timulak, L., Buchholz, M. B., Frommer, J., Fuertes, J., Iwakabe, S., Martínez, C., Morrill, Z., Knox, S., Langer, P., Muran, J. C., Weie Oddli, H., Řiháček, T., Tomicic, A., & Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2024). Broadening the evidentiary basis for clinical practice guidelines: Recommendations from qualitative psychotherapy researchers. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001363

Timulak, L. (2009). Meta-analysis of qualitative studies: A tool for reviewing qualitative research findings in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4–5), 591–600. doi:10.1080/ 10503300802477989

Timulak, L., & Creaner, M. (2023). Essentials of qualitative meta-analysis. American Psychological Association.

Examples of Qualitative and Integrative Meta-Analyses

Chircop Coleiro, A., Creaner, M., & Timulak, L. (2023). The good, the bad, and the less than ideal in clinical supervision: A qualitative meta-analysis of supervisee experiences. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 36(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2021.2023098

Constien, T., Khanna, A., & Wiberg, A. (2024). Client experiences of drama therapy: A systematic review and qualitative meta-analysis. Qualitative Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000300

Dandy, S., Wittkowski, A., & Murray, C. D. (2024). Parents’ experiences of receiving their child’s diagnosis of congenital heart disease: A systematic review and meta‐synthesis of the qualitative literature. British Journal of Health Psychology, 29(2), 351–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12703

Ladmanová, M., Řiháček, T., Timulak, L., Jonášová, K., Kubantová, B., Mikoška, P., Polakovská, L., & Elliott, R. (2024). Client-identified outcomes of individual psychotherapy: A qualitative meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00356-0

Levitt, H. M., Pomerville, A., & Surace, F. I. (2016). A qualitative meta-analysis examining clients’ experiences of psychotherapy: A new agenda. Psychological Bulletin, 142(8), 801–830. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000057

Levitt, H. M., & Morrill, Z. (2023). Silences in psychotherapy: An integrative meta-analytic research review. Psychotherapy, 60(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000480

Mosley, D. V., McNeil-Young, V., Bridges, B., Adam, S., Colson, A., Crowley, M., & Lee, L. (2021). Toward radical healing: A qualitative metasynthesis exploring oppression and liberation among Black queer people. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 8(3), 292–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000522

O’Malley, R., Glenny, R., Poppleton, S., & Timulak, L. (2023). A qualitative meta-analysis exploring client-reported outcomes of couple therapy. Psychotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000513

Polakovská, L., & Řiháček, T. (2022). What is it like to live with medically unexplained physical symptoms? A qualitative meta-summary. Psychology & Health, 37(5), 580-596. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2021.1901900

Scott, M., & Cornelius-White, J. H. D. (2024). Mental health and social support experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming adults in rural America: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 28(2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2022.2128136

Vybíral, Z., Ogles, B. M., Řiháček, T., Urbancová, B., & Gocieková, V. (2024). Negative experiences in psychotherapy from clients’ perspective: A qualitative meta-analysis. Psychotherapy Research, 34(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2023.2226813

Wu, M. B., & Levitt, H. M. (2020). A qualitative meta-analytic review of the therapist responsiveness literature: Guidelines for practice and training. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy: On the Cutting Edge of Modern Developments in Psychotherapy, 50(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-020-09450-y [Actually an integrative review]