Only having joined the list and not having learned the terminology,
apologies for irrelevance. However in the conceptual scheme which is easiest
for me, I may have a theory that [there is in reality a mechanism M that
under certain contextual conditions (C) produces certain effects (O)]. This
theory of mine is subject to confirmation, disconfirmation, etc.
This does not mean that a mechanism that is shown to operate out there in
some real world is itself a theory. Indeed, I would suggest that a
[mechanism shown to operate] is not a theory but a reality; that an alleged
mechanism that does not exist does not exist.
Best wishes
Tom
P.S. Social science researchers interested in (BNIM): the
biographic-narrative interpretive method. For a free electronic copy of the
current version of the BNIM Short Guide and Detailed Manual , just click on
<[log in to unmask]> . Please indicate your institutional affiliation and
the purpose for which you might envisage using BNIM’s open-narrative
interviews, and I'll send it straight away.
The BNIM Short Guide and Detailed Manual builds on and develops ch. 6 and
12 of my earlier textbook, Qualitative Research Interviewing: biographic
narrative and semi-structured method (2001 Sage Publications) which has a
more general approach to semi-structured depth interviewing, interpretation,
and writing-up.
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Valéry Ridde
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim summary - Theories local....
Dear all
Interesting also to read the following article (using also MTO case) written
by economists who use also the concept of "mechanism", using theory-based
evaluation literature but not realistic lit.
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.17
Ludwig, Jens, Jeffrey R. Kling, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2011. "Mechanism
Experiments and Policy Evaluations." Journal of Economic Perspectives,
25(3): 1738.
Still work to do about the concept and utilization of mechanism to follow
Astbury, B. and Leeuw, F.L. (2010) AJE.
Valéry
> De : Geoff Wong <[log in to unmask]>
> Répondre à : "Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving
> Standards" <[log in to unmask]>, Geoff Wong <[log in to unmask]>
> Date : Thu, 18 Aug 2011 05:15:56 +0100
> À : <[log in to unmask]>
> Objet : Re: Interim summary - Theories local....
>
> A good point... to avoid any confusion that comes from simplification :-)
....
>
> I would agree a mechansims is a form of theory. I did not say it wasn't,
> though I accept that my posting by implication may have suggested so.
(More
> interesting is the question of whether or not all mechanisms are
theories??)
>
> If we define a theory as "... an attempt to organize the facts some
> Œproven¹, some more conjectural within a domain of inquiry into a
> structurally coherent system.²
> [Klee R. Introduction to the philosophy of science. Cutting nature at its
> seams. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. It's only an example of a
> definition that I like as it is simple and easy to remember]
> .... then a mechanism is a theory and it would be surprising it is not as
in
> explaining 'how' an outcome is generated there is a degree of overlap with
> 'why'.
>
> Perhaps a 'better' explanation of what I was trying to say is that you
can't
> always just stop in a RS when you have 'found' a mechanism. More 'work' is
> often needed - is it reasonable to call this more theory? For example,
feeling
> safe may be a mechanism, but whether or not is is triggered will depend on
> context and also needs to be linked to the outcome of interest. An example
of
> the importance of having 'more' theory where feeling safe acts may be
found in
> Jackson et al.'s review on Moving to opportunity (MTO) (attached). In
brief
> summary (that does this review little justice) for this programme (MTO)
the
> refinement needed was to specify this feeling safe mechanism in more
detail.
> One finding was that moving to a 'better' new neighbourhood was a more
> positive experience for females (vs. males) as the former felt physically
> safer. (Which nicely ties in with Gill's comments that CMOs are also
theories
> ...)
>
> Geoff
|