Hi Kev
It was lovely to meet you at the conference too. :-)

There's been some great advice in response to your questions - both in terms
of responses to examiners and how to manage the issue in formal terms in
viva's (past and future).  My little addition is about 'how to get clearer
about the similarities and differences' between the various thinkers and
various schools.  (I.E. - to learn / understand it, rather than manage the
issue in a PhD!) 

I did an essay as part of my Post Grad Cert in research methods (prior to
PhD) which compared critical realism  -  mainly as per Bhaskar, but with
reference to Archer and a few others as well  -  with scientific realism
(largely as per Pawson and Tilley).  The purpose was to assess which was
likely to be 'more useful' for evaluation.  As a brand new newcomer to the
area, in order to prepare the material for the essay, I made up a table -
critical realism in one column, scientific realism in the other - and
inserted quotes on particular elements from key texts for both.  The process
of preparing the table made me jump back and forth between the texts,
looking for what 'x' had said about 'y', which meant I read sub-sections
multiple times - which really helped in terms of understanding.  The fact
that they often hadn't quite talked about exactly the same elements in the
same way meant that I had to infer based on 'first principles' within the
respective texts - which made me think deeply about the similarities and
differences.  The product I ended up with (the table)  let me be clear about
where I thought the similarities and differences really were, but also
showed me 'on which elements are the respective authors silent'.  (Or more
accurately in some cases, have I not yet found what they've said.)  I also
read a few other authors (although not as rigorously), which helped me to
see where the various writers sat in relation to each other.   These days, I
wish I'd kept the table... it would have been a useful teaching resource -
but the moral of the story is:   I think preparing one's own table is a
really useful way to learn.

On particular bits with which I grappled most vigorously (because I didn't
get it - e.g. 'just what is a mechanism?') I extracted multiple quotes from
each of multiple authors  - so I could understand the similarities and
differences in the ways different authors thought about that particular
issue. I do plan to write up something about different ways of thinking
about mechanism in future.   

Note that my approach wouldn't frame the question as 'the difference between
realism and critical realism'.  It frames the question as 'what are the
similarities and differences between critical and scientific realism -
which are but two of the 'brands' within the broad church of realism.' 

As to ontology and epistemology - my personal view is that you can't be a
realist epistemologically (i.e. with reference to epistemology) unless you
are also a realist ontologically and that it makes little sense to be a
realist with reference to ontology and then be anything but a realist
epistemologically.  Bhaskar's original question ('What must the nature of
the world be like for science to work as it does?') in fact integrates the
two.  I just think it's useful to be clear about which we're talking about
at a particular point in time.  

Cheers
Gill  

-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kev Harris
Sent: Sunday, 16 November 2014 11:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: A plea for some philosophical advice

Dear RAMESES members ,

It was great to meet many of you in Liverpool at what was a great
conference. 

The reason for this post centres upon a philosophical muddle I am currently
in trying to make sense and gain clarity around the philosophical groundings
of my PhD. Apologies if this comes across as a stupid message ! 

In my MPHil viva just over a month ago I was asked to clarify the
philosophical groundings of my PhD which involves training practitioners to
elicit RE in their own projects and then me testing my training framework
through an RE methodology. Immediately I moved towards realism or more
specifically critical realism where I covered that there is a reality
independent of our knowledge of it yet there are hidden mechanisms /
generative causality etc etc. For me, as I am training practitioners to
carry out RE on their own social change interventions , and thus using RE
myself to test my framework with the practitioners, I highlighted that my
take on things was to explore how individuals (for whom) impact on and are
impacted by external structures (contexts) and then reason against resources
provided (mechanisms) which lead to certain behaviours and outcomes. I felt
I had done a decent job in explaining that individuals have the capacity to
change only through navigating their own internal dispositions and within
the structural dynamics external to them (eg structure and agency). 

Then I was then asked to explain how my position (critical realist) was
different to realist and I started to feel hot and uneasy! I basically did
not feel comfortable with the question. 

Since then (and at the conference) I have been trying to establish the
difference between realism and critical realism. I still cannot get to a
position where I can fully distinguish between the two. In some text books
realism is an ontological position and then an epistemological position.

I have just started reading Ray's new book which actually states in the
opening pages the fact that he is not critical realist per se, and that in
the following chapter 'the seven pillars' applies different takes (from my
interpretation) of realist thinkers / greats. Does that mean Pawson and
Tilley's take on realistic evaluation draws upon a variety of different
realist positions that drives their approach? 

Can anyone help? Am I not the only one new to this field having the same
troubles? I think the key question is : is there anyone who could advise how
to answer these questions in a VIVA and be able to firmly state what the
philosophical foundations (ontological and epistemological) of their PhD are
which then leads to the methodology of RE? 

Apologies again if this comes across as an 'idiots' email but that's
certainly how I feel right now 'philosophically'!



Kind Regards

Kevin Harris
Senior Fellow : Higher Education Academy Senior Lecturer Sport Development
and Sport Policy Course Leader, BA Hons Sport Coaching and Development
Southampton Solent University East Park Terrace
02380 319520

Follow us on Twitter: @SSUSpCoachDev
Check out our blog: www.solentsportsdegrees.blogspot.co.uk
Follow our You Tube channel: ssusportdev2012