I'm intrigued, Trish, by your uncertainty that the theories are always out
there.  (Well, 'always' might be a bit strong, but you know...)  I thought
the variation in constructs and paradigms that underpins Meta-Narrative
Review would imply multiplicity of theories, rather than absence of same??

I'm also intrigued, Bruno, by your phrase (a couple of emails back) about
"theories and/or best practice that already exist".  Firstly - while one can
say that 'best practice' documents represent a kind of theory, I suspect
that theory in the sense we've been discussing lies at a somewhat different
level of abstraction than does 'best practice'.  More importantly, I'm not
100% convinced that the logic of 'best practice' (crudely summarised: do' x'
to get 'y' outcome) is congruent with realist philosophy...   Would be
interested to hear more of your thinking around that.

The other issue that I think arises in relation to theory or choice of
theories relates to the structure of the question one is trying to answer.
So a question that asks one to identify the mechanisms (plural) that
contribute or may contribute to an outcome or set of outcomes might require
one to draw on multiple theories across quite a wide range of disciplines.
A question that asks one to identify in what circumstances particular middle
range mechanisms are effective  (or more accurately, constructs within which
mechanisms lie - e.g. 'community accountability'; 'voice') might suggest a
narrower range of theories.  Both these questions draw on real RS examples,
but neither relies on a particular program or even 'family of programs'.
This suggests to me that the nature of the task for the reviewer, in drawing
the relationship between middle range theory and program theory might be
different, depending on what the task is...

Cheers
Gill



-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of BMarchal
Sent: Monday, 18 July 2011 3:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Theories - local or formal

Well, i would be tempted to follow Gill's 'definition' of mechanisms, in
which case there are a lot of theories in psychology, sociology and
economics (including their organisational sub-fields), but also in cognitive
sciences that can provide insights in how people act and why and then change
their situation (or not). In as far as human behaviour will never be fully
'explainable', there will always be theories lacking, but there is already a
great mass of knowledge out there...

-bruno


> From: Trisha Greenhalgh <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving 
> Standards" <[log in to unmask]>, Trisha Greenhalgh 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:29:53 +0100
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Theories - local or formal
> 
> 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


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