I'm not as sure as Ray that the theories are always there....



Trisha Greenhalgh
Professor of Primary Health Care and Director, Healthcare Innovation and
Policy Unit
Centre for Primary Care and Public Health
Blizard Institute
Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Yvonne Carter Building
Turner Street
London E1 2AT
t : 020 7882 7325 (PA) or 7326 (dir line)
f : 020 7882 2552
e: [log in to unmask] 


http://www.icms.qmul.ac.uk/chs/staff/trishagreenhalgh.html


-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of BMarchal
Sent: 17 July 2011 11:37
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Theories - local or formal

Hello all, 

I think that this exchange, and especially Ray's last response ( evaluators
keep their noses on the ground in immediate programme theories; reviewers
can benefit more from middle-levels of abstraction because it allows them
ponder variation of that family of programmes yet to cross the
policy-maker's mind", neatly summons an answer to the initial question of
Barend and Marjolein.

In a review, one  focus first on what is reported but one can -- and
probably should, in order to produce some added value -- reflect the
findings and outcomes of the study under review against the theories and/or
best practice that already exist. Confronting existing theory with evidence
will integrate both and provide stronger theory-based frameworks for future
interventions.
One challenge is choosing the theories that are most usefully explaining the
effect of the programme in question. With our team, we, too, found ourselves
often questioned by political scientists or sociologists about the choice of
theories: inevitably, the realist reviewer/evaluator only masters some
disciplines and may tend to eclectically pick theories from other
disciplines. This points to the need of having a multidisciplinary team or
researchers with a broad knowledge and experience...

Best,
-bruno

Bruno Marchal, MD, MPH
Research Fellow
Health Care Management Unit
Department of Public Health
Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp (Belgium)

Nationalestraat 155, B-2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
+32.3.2476384


> From: Raymond Pawson <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving
> Standards" <[log in to unmask]>, Raymond Pawson
<[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:54:10 +0100
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Theories - local or formal
> 
> Short Friday afternoon answer.
> 
> There isn't a new programme theory under the sun. So I may be the first
policy
> maker to offer grants to help people install wind-turbines in their back
> gardens but that would make me the 1000th policy maker to use
> 'incentivisation' as the basis for change. I may be the first policy maker
in
> the UK to advocate banning smoking in cars carrying children but this
would
> make me the 1000th policy maker trying to control tobacco by a process of
> 'denormalisation'. Social science operates at a higher level of
abstraction
> than evaluation and so, as you say, there are bodies of theory already
> available which can be accommodated into the design and analysis of a
> theory-driven review. Broadly speaking evaluators keep their noses on the
> ground in immediate programme theories; reviewers can benefit more from
> middle-levels of abstraction because it allows them ponder variation of
that
> family of programmes yet to cross the policy-maker's mind (incentives for
> dead-heading roses).
> 
> Your question is about what happens if the family of programmes sits
> potentially under several more abstract theories. As ever, my answer is -
of
> course. For instance, there are generally theories which favour more
> sociological or more psychological theories of change. Choose whichever
you
> like. But which you like will take you into different bodies of primary
> research. The idea is not to end with the total triumph of a particular
theory
> but with a refined understanding of the one under review.
> 
> That said - reference group theory is a total triumph.
> 
> R
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gill Westhorp
> Sent: 15 July 2011 11:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Theories - magic or material?
> 
> Thanks Ray - reassuring to hear this.  At this risk of making a public
turkey
> of myself by replying without reading the attachments first:
> 
> The question (little set of questions) I'm often asked is "and what's the
> relationship between these (potentially informal) theories and 'formal'
> (sociological/other substantive domain) theories? What if there doesn't
seem
> to be a relationship to formal theory? How does one then choose a formal
> theory to use to construct an MRT from the outcomes?"
> 
> I'm thinking here of the apparent 'leap' you made from (hmm, doing this
from
> memory after a glass of red on a Friday night)  was it from Naming Shaming
and
> Faming to reference group theory? How to decide which theory to 'leap to'
> there? I'd like to hear your ideas/strategy on the selection of the formal
> theory...
> 
> Meanwhile - a variation on the same strategy you've outlined: in a current
> review, one of the things that I did was note the 'formal theories' that
were
> referenced in the literature as I was reading it.  There were several,
> relevant to different aspects of the question.  Some proved more useful
than
> others for developing early propositions, and many of those 'useful
theories'
> turned out to be worthy search terms in their own right...
> 
> Cheers
> Gill 


Disclaimer: Http://www.itg.be/disclaimer