Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review.

By Trisha Greenhalgh, Glenn Robert, F. Macfarlane, P. Bate, O. Kyriakidou, R. Peacock. Social Science & Medicine (1967), 2005

883 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Clarifying differences between review designs and methods (2012, background): “Meta narrative review [11] How to understand the development of research on an issue within and across different research traditions?”
Investigating forty years of stem research: How explanations for the gender gap have evolved over time (2014, background): “In order to gain a forty-year perspective on the ways that women’s underrepresentation in college STEM majors has been conceptualized, we utilized Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, Kyriakidou, and Peacock’s (Greenhalgh et al., 2005) meta-narrative method of analysis.”
Systematicity in Organizational Research Literature Reviews: A Framework and Assessment (2021, methodology): “For narrative approaches to literature reviews, techniques such as metanarrative mapping provide a way to develop coherent storylines from the literature (Greenhalgh et al., 2005).”
Learning disruption or learning loss: using evidence from unplanned closures to inform returning to school after COVID-19 (2021, methodology): “Recommendations and conclusions In line with Greenhalgh et al.’s (2005) suggested structure for a meta-narrative review, we take our synthesis forward to form recommendations for educators, policymakers and researchers.”
Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. (2004, methodology): “For a full list of primary sources, please see our main report (Greenhalgh et al. 2005a).”