 |
 |
I suspect that there are magicians everywhere cursing at the implications of the metaphor of "magic" being used by Ray and I. Modern magicians seem to spend hours perfecting the system for their trick so that it, in theory, should work everytime. Unless we really mean "alchemy" which may be difficult for funders to swallow. After all it is Ok "digging for nuggets" but transmuting them from anthracite is something else! But seriously, informal discussions with Geoff here in Sheffield earlier this year seemed to arrive at the conclusion that the reviewer will continually have to bounce between the two levels of theory reexamining each as new data or insights emerge. In which case where you start might be less critical than making sure you engage with both. So we have moved from magician to trampolinist - much more constructivist! BW Andrew On 06/07/2012 08:43, Raymond Pawson wrote: > Hi Jo and all > > The mystery of theory generation lands on our table. Personally (to go back to a point from Andrew) I like a bit of magic in conjuring them up. Alas, I suspect we can't include hocus-pocus in the RAMESES declarations. > > What is clear is that RS needs to operate at BOTH levels of theory. There is a need to bounce off programme / stakeholder theories otherwise there would be no application of the research. More abstract middle range theories are needed otherwise it would be impossible to transfer lessons and it would be impossible to travel off to other domains in search of evidence. > > Which comes first? I suspect that this is chicken and egg question. I guess there is a more subtle answer - the particular scope of the review will probably determine the optimal starting point. I'm not sure that I can articulate the rule - which review questions invite which theories? > > Sounds like a good question for a seminar. > > RAY > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joanne Rycroft-Malone > Sent: 05 July 2012 09:03 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: systematic and explicit methods for searching for theories > > Hi RAMESES participants > I am interested to hear what group members think about how theory is > defined within realist work and how we go about combining implicit and > explicit theory in the development of a starting MRT (including how > stakeholders are involved in that). I have always started with the > premise that we are interested in finding out what was in the minds of > programme developers, previous research and then move to explicit theory > as appropriate/relevant. We have projects in our group that have used > different starting points - implicit - explicit - stakeholder driven - > and are planning on writing a paper using these experiences as case > studies of different approaches to theory use and development within > realist work. However, I wonder whether the new standards are going to > point us in any particular direction? and how others' have tackled these > tricky issues! > Kind regards > Jo > > > Patricia O'Campo wrote: >> Hi there, >> Andrew, I too would be interested in knowing more about such a method as we are just starting a project and are the 'theory searching' phase and could use some guidance on systematic approaches to locating theories. Please share methods and/or direct us to your relevant publications. Thanks! -Pat >> >> >> Patricia O'Campo Ph.D. >> Director, Centre for Research on Inner City Health (www.crich.ca) >> Professor, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto >> Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Justin Jagosh, Mr [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: 04 July 2012 09:58 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: journal suggestions >> >> Andrew, >> >> I'm interested in knowing more about your systematic and explicit methods for searching for theories. Have you published this process or are you planning to? >> >> Justin >> >> >> ________________________________ >> Justin Jagosh, Ph.D >> Canadian Institutes for Health Research Post-Doctoral Fellow >> Centre for Participatory Research at McGill (PRAM) >> Department of Family Medicine >> McGill University >> >> >> >> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Andrew Booth [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: July 4, 2012 12:10 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: journal suggestions >> >> Further to this - we must not simply problematize the editors and reviewers (after all they are in most cases fellow academics and colleagues). It would be equally helpful to identify where realist review is weak (in either methods or reporting) and try to strengthen these methods while remaining true to its principles. For example in the course of two ongoing realist reviews I have developed systematic and explicit methods for searching for theories - to avoid magicking candidate theories out of the air and a systematic method for identifying "clusters" of reports around a single study - to provide richness of context and/or underpinning theory. (The wider point is that systematic does not necessarily equal comprehensive/exhaustive) >> >> As you propbably have guessed I'm one for getting the retaliation in first i.e. we should try to forestall the objections rather than just being seen to be "wingeing" after rejection. >> >> BW >> >> Andrew >> >> >> On 04/07/2012 07:29, Geoff Wong wrote: >> Nice to be nominated to so things in my absence :-) >> Happy to have a look and comment. >> Just to say that one of the things we did in developing the RAMESES publication standards was to try to capture these very issues that seem to cause 'confusion' for some editors and peer-reviewers. So for example, that it is OK for a realist review to be iterative or that a search does not have to be exhaustive. >> There may be more that we have missed, but then a look at rejection letters would very possible help. >> Geoff >> >> >> On 4 July 2012 07:12, Rob Anderson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> Only just picked up this trail - good idea! >> I would go further than Trish's strategy and rather than wait for the rejection/unfavourable peer review before sending the rebuttal, submit the supporting information with the paper when submitted: "Common reasons realist reviews are rejected by journals and why they are wrong". >> >> Or is that being too provocative! >> Rob >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Gill Westhorp [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >> Sent: 04 July 2012 00:33 >> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: journal suggestions >> >> Thanks for the offer to collect and collate. >> >> My first nomination for senior vet would be Geoff, at least for now. >> Rationale: he's the PI for the RAMESES project and he's very skilled and >> experienced in assessing syntheses, so he'll probably also be good at >> assessing whether the feedback is on or off track. >> >> (I also like the notion that that a doctor (medico) doctor (Phd) should also >> be a vet. Oh, that was awful. Couldn't help myself.) >> >> Mind you I suspect a number of list participants could share the load too. >> And it's a great way to get practice in being rigorous about assessing the >> strengths and weaknesses of both syntheses and critiques of syntheses. >> >> Gill >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Kelly McShane >> Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:50 PM >> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: journal suggestions >> >> awesome thought! I am totally into that. >> I'm happy to start the collection, perhaps someone more senior from the >> group wants to vet them with me?!? don't want to step on any toes... just >> looking to help out. >> >> Kelly >> ________________________________________ >> Kelly McShane, Ph.D., C. Psych. >> Assistant Professor >> Department of Psychology >> Ryerson University >> 350 Victoria Street >> Toronto Ontario Canada M5B 2K3 >> Phone: 416-979-5000, ext 2051<tel:416-979-5000%2C%20ext%202051> (after pressing 1) >> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards >> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Trisha Greenhalgh >> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:38 AM >> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: journal suggestions >> >> One thing the realist review community needs to do is collect all the >> rejection letters from major journals and pubish a paper explaining common >> editorial/reviewer misconceptions. That way, instead of reinventing the >> wheel every time our papers get rejected we can all just send a copy of the >> 'generic rebuttal'. >> >> So when you get those rejection letters, think of them as DATA! >> >> Prof Trisha Greenhalgh >> Global Health, Policy and Innovation Unit Centre for Primary Care and Public >> Health Blizard Institute Barts and The London School of Medicine and >> Dentistry Yvonne Carter Building >> 58 Turner Street >> London E1 2AB >> t : 020 7882 7325 (PA) or 7326 (dir line) f : 020 7882 2552 >> e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Twitter @trishgreenhalgh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 03/07/2012 03:19, "Joanne Lynn" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> >>> In the US, we probably have farther to go than you imagine. So far as >>> I can tell, our major medical journals, have never published a process >>> control chart, much less a realist evaluation. Pediatrics now has a QI >>> section, and we have a couple quality/safety journals. But otherwise, >>> it's an arid desert. Let me know if you know of contrary examples. >>> >>> Joanne Lynn >>> >>> >>> Joanne Lynn, MD, MA, MS >>> Director, Center on Elder Care and Advanced Illness Altarum Institute >>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> 202-776-5109<tel:202-776-5109> >>> mobile 202-297-9773<tel:202-297-9773> >>> for care transitions - see www.medicaring.org<http://www.medicaring.org> follow care transitions >>> on Twitter @medicaring ________________________________________ >>> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards >>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Gill Westhorp >>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >>> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 9:47 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> Subject: Re: journal suggestions: MI for teen health >>> >>> Hi Kelly >>> It would be very useful for me (as a sometime trainer in RS) and >>> possibly for the RAMESES core team to see the specific concerns about >>> the methodology - perhaps you might be prepared to share them with us >>> in a bit more detail at another time, or perhaps through a private email >>> >> (e.g. >> >>> to Geoff Wong or myself)? >>> >>> In relation to journals: >>> >>> Evaluation (European Journal) has published quite a bit of realist >>> evaluation stuff and may stretch to a realist review (might be worth an >>> exploratory email before you submit, asking their views on that!) >>> >>> I personally favour getting reviews into topic specific journals >>> because I think it will 'spread the word' about the fact that different >>> synthesis methods are 'available and out there'. Not to mention, good >>> examples might help demonstrate how useful the realist approach is! >>> >>> Others will be better informed than I about specific journals. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Gill >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Kelly McShane >>> Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:09 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> Subject: journal suggestions: MI for teen health >>> >>> Hi All- >>> Just got a manuscript rejected from Health Psychology Review as they >>> did not find the realist method credible (etc, save you the details). >>> The MS examines the use of motivational interviewing to address >>> adolescent health behaviours, using a realist review. >>> Suggestions for journals? Our team is thinking something European? Not >>> sure if a review journal is within our reach, or if something more >>> topic specific is better. >>> Thanks. >>> Kelly >>> ______________________ >>> Kelly McShane, Ph.D., C.Psych. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Psychology >>> Ryerson University >>> 350 Victoria Street >>> Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3 >>> Phone: 416-979-5000, ext 2051<tel:416-979-5000%2C%20ext%202051> (after pressing 1) >>> Fax: 416-979-5273<tel:416-979-5273> >>> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> >> [FW1] >> > -- > Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig / Registered Charity No. 1141565 > > Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, > gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig > gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y > neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar > unwaith a dilëwch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, > rhaid i chi beidio â defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a > gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i > hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn > Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu > bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu > 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn > nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract > rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa > Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk > > This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and > is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately > and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you > must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this > email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do > not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. > Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or > any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless > expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is > not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised > signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance > Office. www.bangor.ac.uk > > [FW1]