In this paper we will reflect upon our experience from our engagement in meta-ethnography to discuss the ways that this has informed our own understanding of the role of the researcher in the process of qualitative synthesis. More specifically we will discuss how our engagement with meta-ethnography has been a constant effort to maintain a balance between two seemingly opposite tendencies: the tendency to protect the particularity and uniqueness of single ethnographies and that for comparison to lead to generalisations. In terms of the latter we have followed Noblit & Hare’s (1998) direction of meta-ethnography towards the synthesis of the translation of the analysis of single ethnographies rather than of the analysis per se. In terms of the uniqueness of single ethnographies our experience made us realise that a challenge for meta-ethnography is a sense of ownership and expertise associated with the immersion of the ethnographers in the field of their study. Dealing with this has been a far richer experience than we anticipated and has highlighted the importance of reflexivity for meta-ethnographic analysis and for qualitative synthesis. References Noblit, G. W. & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.