Qualitative Psychology, Vol 13(3), Oct 2026, 423-443; doi:10.1037/qup0000383
Qualitative meta-analyses, also called metasyntheses, have become increasingly relevant in psychology as the number of qualitative primary studies has been steadily rising. Integrative mixed methods meta-analysis is a newer method in psychology that synthesizes qualitative and quantitative findings together. In this editorial for our special section on Qualitative and Integrative Meta-Analysis and Metasynthesis, we consider how researchers using these methods can best adapt procedures to strengthen rigor and methodological integrity. Both approaches provide both an understanding of key findings and directions for going forward. In this article, we evaluate the coherence of procedures often incorporated in these designs in relation to the logic of qualitative methods and offer suggestions. Topics discussed include the formation of a study aim, numbers of primary studies to include, what data to include from those studies, and the organization of findings and their reporting. Notably, we argue that ratings of the quality of primary studies are an unnecessary conformity to expectations from quantitative meta-analyses that usually do not benefit qualitative meta-analyses or integrative mixed methods meta-analysis. We also consider how the procedure of theoretical saturation is best used in qualitative meta-analyses and metasyntheses. By addressing methodological issues that appear problematic or controversial in the field, we provide directions for how qualitative researchers can strengthen these reviews in a manner that is congruent with qualitative reasoning, that can save valuable time expended in inappropriate procedures, and that can strengthen the methodological integrity of their findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved)