Original Message
From: Gill Westhorp
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2016 3:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Reply To: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
Subject: Re: Realist criteria for funding allocation


Hi Kim and all

Your reply has arrived disconnected from whatever it was replying to so I hope I'm not restating what's just been said:

Assuming that the funding criteria being discussed are for progams (as distinct from evaluation of programs) - I'd have assumed that programs are already having to make a plausible case for their potential before they get funded?

Two options for 'realist tweaks' on this:  One is to require not just a plausible case but an explanation of 'how and why' it's plausible (ie getting at mechanisms, albeit the terminology probably wouldn't be used).  The other would be that their whole 'plausible case' has to be discussed 'in a realist way' - eg outcomes for whom in what context and how?

If so - that's quite a lot of work to expect from people in advance of receiving funding.  Perhaps the implication might be to adopt a model already used in some research funding and some kinds of innovation funding:  Programs put up an initial rough proposal and those assessed as having good potential receive relatively small scale funding to develop the proposals further; a smaller group are then selected for implementation funding.  I guess I'd have to ask a variant of the realist question about this: In what circumstances would this approach be most suitable, for whom/what, and why?  "For whom" in that should include "for which funders/funding circumstances" and "for which programs and providers", I'd think.

As for sectors with limited evidence - one option would be to fund realist reviews or rapid realist reviews in those areas as part of the development process - because of course, realist reviews don't have to be limited to the sector in which the proposal will be funded.

Cheers
Gill

-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kim Grey
Sent: Sunday, 7 August 2016 3:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Realist criteria for funding allocation

Thanks for this response - I agree these are separate angles, and this is a useful distinction.

Is a third angle to do with: Selection of grants based on how well they make a plausible case for their potential to produce successful program outcomes down the track?  We can only guess at potential, in a sector where we have very limited evidence.

One thought, which might be an obvious one, is that including program theory and sources of evidence justifying the anticipated theory of change, could be useful selection criteria. However I'm not sure how well this would need to be done to be really useful.

Kim