Open science principles require research syntheses to make analytic decisions visible and traceable, yet how qualitative meta-syntheses in education document these processes remain underexplored. Meta-synthesis aims to systematically synthesize findings across qualitative studies and produce configurative interpretations. However, meta-synthesis in education is often characterized by methodological diversity, limited transparency, and weak theoretical anchoring, possible partly because many meta-synthesis methods originate from the health field, where research questions and theoretical traditions differ from those in education (Maeda et al., 2022). This paper contributes to the symposium’s focus on open science and good scientific practice in research syntheses by examining how research questions and epistemological positioning shape methodological choices, synthesis methods, and the use of theory, and how these processes are documented in educational meta-syntheses. The study is conducted as a methodological systematic review, following principles for systematic reviews (Gough et al., 2017). A systematic search was carried out in ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews published in English and focusing on education were included if they reported a meta-synthesis process. Double-blind screening was used in the title and abstract and full-text phases, resulting in 164 included systematic reviews. Data extraction and analysis are guided by Brunton et al.’s (2020) framework to examine research questions, analytic approaches, epistemological positioning, and the role of theory. Based on preliminary findings, thematic analysis with an inductive approach dominates meta-synthesis in educational research. However, many studies provide limited descriptions of how analysis and synthesis are conducted. In several studies, analysis methods seem to be taken from primary qualitative studies rather than from established meta-synthesis approaches. Furthermore, theory is used primarily to organize coded findings rather than to guide the synthesis process, and explicit epistemological reflection is rarely articulated. By the time of the conference, coding will be completed. The presentation will report the main results and reflect on implications for transparency, methodological clarity, and open scientific practice in educational meta-synthesis.

Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., Caird, J., & Thomas, J. (2020). Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(3), 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1399 Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). SAGE. Maeda, Y., Hunsu, N., Lee, M., & Horan, E. M. (2022). A methodological systematic review of qualitative synthesis research in education. Review of Educational Research, 92(3), 407–446. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221083297