Thank you for all reactions to my question. You made me feel very happy with this list!
Marcello, your description of your way of “peer review” opened up my eyes for what the task is. Trisha, addressing preliminary results to my students to let them discuss is one interesting option. Apart from that a small group of doctoral candidates from different disciplines at my university came into my focus as well. They might love a good discussion.
Nick, you recommended as a methodological guide pages 396-397/413-414 Greenhalgh et al. (2009). How do you modernize a health service? Gill, thank you by the way for pointing out that there is a difference between realist reviews and meta-narratives.
But:
As far as I understood Greenhalgh et al (2005): Diffusion of Innovations … meta-narrative is the whole approach (“across-paradigm”, p. 45) while working with each single storylines is very much like a realist review/realist evaluation, isn’t it? Then, it’s the “within-paradigm”, ebd. and referring to Pawson (2002), see Greenhalgh et al 2005: 46 and 228-230, e.g. adapted to the study of “‘real-world’ implementation studies”, ebd.: 240-241).
With kind regards
Alexandra
Alexandra Reith
Hochschule Emden/Leer
Fachbereich Soziale Arbeit und Gesundheit
Constantiaplatz 4
26723 Emden
Tel.: (04921) 807 1214
Fax: (04921) 807 1251
Email: [log in to unmask]
|