I've taken the liberty of fusing these two threads as in a way they run on from each other.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
The thread 'Realist compared to other systematic reviews' contained an edited excerpt from a funding body that seems to imply that all reviews are the same except for the processes that they employ. The unspoken assumption seems to be that all review methods share the same philosophy of science?
I have come across this before (as I am sure many of you have as well :-( where some see the world only through the one and only 'true' lens and/or assume that all others use the same lens as themselves and/or do not appreciate that there are other lens.
In effect realist (and meta-narrative reviews) are lumped together with all other 'qualitative' review types and certainly for realist reviews, the realist understanding of generative causation and its implications on recommendations is lost.
PERSUADING FUNDERS
The discussion then moved on to so what do you do about it? (The 'how to persuade funders...' thread)
And, what the implications are if funding is given - for reviewers and funders.
One comment pointed out the need to show what 'added value' different review types show. Indeed conceptualising new review methods as innovations may provide a useful theoretical lens on how practice may change?
Suggestions followed that indicated that any change would come through a slow hard uphill slog (unless of course you were in Canada :-)
- develop the method
- provide training
- get 'em whilst their young (i.e. get it into a curriculum)
- keep knocking at the door (e.g. submit grant applications and publications)
- get on the decision making panels
- engage other researchers to explain things
Hopefully the RAMESES project will also help as it's hard to claim something is of 'high quality' when there are no 'quality' standards or training. Such materials may help funders sort the wheat from the chaff.
It was pointed out that part of the 'charm' offensive may also need to focus on making the funding and timescales realistic for different review types. For example, review questions may need refining to make them 'answerable' or 'relevant' to the method chosen. Some questions are so broad that it would take a life time to address them. Many of you (me included) will have felt overwhelmed by the potential amount of work a review might generate. One helpful step may be to be able to engage with funders to focus reviews, but it this may not be something funders wish to do.
Geoff
|