PLEASE NOTE:
When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members.
If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask] from the 'To:' section of your email.
Hi Bree,
Can you please explain the difference between crtical realism and scientific realism (I have listened to Dr. Jagosh's lecture).
Thanks,
Giao
________________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Bree Weizenegger [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 4:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Seeking feedback
PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> from the 'To:' section of your email.
Hi John.
There are far more learned individuals on this listserv than I, but I want to make a few amateur comments as a PhD student using critical realism in her research. I'm not sure exactly what you were seeking feedback on, but here are my thoughts on what you have presented thus far:
* I can't see the place of critical realism in what you have discussed so far. You rely heavily on the RE CMO configuration, but scientific realism underlabours for RE, not critical realism (you might want to listen Justin Jagosh discussing this in a recording posted recently to this listserv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLP5evNW37g&t=8s )
* I mention this, because critical realism offers exceptional opportunities for conceptualising a depth ontology, layered reality, and the use of certain steps for research and data analysis to access underlying but invisible mechanisms (e.g. Danermark or Bhaskar's DREIC and RREIC) that you don't seem to have included. I believe you have not included this sort of depth ontology because you mention 'empirical data' and your research being 'empirically grounded' which, in a CR conceptualisation, would be too shallow a take on research. CR is not aimed at exposing the empirical, it is aimed at exploring the 'real', where mechanisms are located. Empirical data points us to demi-regularities which we then explore further by using existing theories to discover mechanisms that give rise to the demi-regularities at the empirical level. We cannot discover the 'real' without using theory - research participants' perceptions on what is occurring is one part of an empirical picture, but theory is needed to delve deeper.
* This leads on to my third point which is, I don't believe grounded theory is fundamentally compatible with a critical realist data analysis. I had vigorous discussions with other PhD students about this at the recent CR conference, and I also know that certain CR heavy-weights (like Doug Porpora) think that GT is fine to use. However, my reasons for thinking this are such: a critical realist analysis (according to Bhaskar and Danermark) starts from a place of abductive redescription which already presumes we are re-describing/re-interpreting the phenomenon using pre-existing categories guided by our research theories. (For example, if I were attempting to understand the phenomenon of sexual violence from a feminist perspective, I might redescribe 'sexual assault' as 'the exertion of power by men over women and children'. If I were attempting to understand the phenomenon of sexual violence from a psychiatric perspective I might redescribe 'sexual assault' as 'a trauma that induces post-traumatic stress disorder'). The way that I redescribe these phenomenon are already affected by my underpinning, domain-specific theories. The next step of retroduction (I actually think retrodiction would be more appropriate for you in this research) of course then uses theory to attempt to hypothesise what underlying mechanisms might be in operation to give us the phenomenon we are observing at the empirical. All of this is to say, grounded theory - especially classic as opposed to Charmaz' slightly more relaxed re-work - starts from an inductive approach and in no way allows for pre-existing theory to enter into data analysis. Because we cannot in CR research just use the participants perspectives, and must use existing theory to understand what they have told us, grounded theory as an inductive analysis cannot by itself be used to analyse data. But, I am just starting out in all this, and am open to being flayed by others for my academic ignorance in this matter.
* I feel unsure about going back and writing your literature review as the retroductive process in this research. The retroductive process should be applied in CR during data analysis, not post-analysis, to my knowledge. Unless you are going to then re-work your data using the theories that you discover in your literature review, to try and further understand what depth mechanisms might be in play. I think for RE studies, the literature review is usually done first as a kind of rapid realist review to try and discover the existing programme theories within the field, and these programme theories are then used as the theory to guide interviews/ analysis. Either way - CR or RE - I think the theories need to be applied to the data analysis process, not the literature review.
I think perhaps these issues could be fixed by abandoning the CR component of your research and grounding it entirely in RE. Others who are using RE in their own research (rather than CR as I am) might be able to help suggest what you could then refine to make it more RE compatible (e.g. the rapid realist review?).
Good luck John!
Bree.
Bree Weizenegger
BA, BSW, DipSomPsych, PhD Candidate (University of Melbourne)
MAASW MIAPSP MISSTD
Melbourne, Australia
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Pullman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 6:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Seeking feedback
PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> from the 'To:' section of your email.
Hi folks
I’m part way through a professional doctorate investigating the impact of Strengths Model (Rapp & Goscha 2012) training and supervision on the therapeutic practice of mental health clinicians. I’m seeking to combine classical grounded theory with critical realism. This has led me to adopt a CMO heuristic as an important component of my analysis. I’ve now constructed a conceptual diagram of my thinking to date which I have posted, along with a short memo explaining how I got to this point and what I’m intending to do from here.
As this is my first foray into critical realist waters in keen to see what the Rameses community makes of my efforts so far. My basic question is ‘does what I’m doing seem to make sense’?
Cheers
Johnny Pullman
University of Tasmania Electronic Communications Policy (December, 2014).
This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.
To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join
________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Pullman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 6:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Seeking feedback
PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> from the 'To:' section of your email.
Hi folks
I’m part way through a professional doctorate investigating the impact of Strengths Model (Rapp & Goscha 2012) training and supervision on the therapeutic practice of mental health clinicians. I’m seeking to combine classical grounded theory with critical realism. This has led me to adopt a CMO heuristic as an important component of my analysis. I’ve now constructed a conceptual diagram of my thinking to date which I have posted, along with a short memo explaining how I got to this point and what I’m intending to do from here.
As this is my first foray into critical realist waters in keen to see what the Rameses community makes of my efforts so far. My basic question is ‘does what I’m doing seem to make sense’?
Cheers
Johnny Pullman
University of Tasmania Electronic Communications Policy (December, 2014).
This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.
To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join
To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join
To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join
|
