Hi Ted
Because I'm extremely cheeky I'll just add something to Ray's response. The
first part of your aim seems to say that mechanisms are elements or
processes in the interventions. It might be just the way you're using the
words, but my understanding of mechanisms (at least a la Pawson and Tilley)
is that mechanisms necessarily involve participants' 'reasoning' (a catch
all term for 'anything inside their heads') in response to elements or
processes in the intervention. Ray and Ana's article (A Realist Diagnostic
Workshop - just referred to for Bernadette's question) is useful for
summarising that, too.
As for the 'who to talk to' question - I regularly refer, in training
programs, to the point Nick and Ray made in the first book, which I
paraphrase as "Different people have, by virtue of their role, different
information". Program authors can tell you how they intended or expected
the program to work. Practitioners can tell you stories about for whom they
think it's worked and for whom not. Participants can tell you (albeit
sometimes imperfectly!) about their 'reasoning' and thus about mechanisms.
So you might ponder on 'what, of what this person can tell me, is relevant
to which bit of which program theory?'. It's just another way to slice the
data cake.
Cheers
Gill
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ted sherman
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2012 7:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questions about Aims, objectives and programme theory gathering
for an MSc dissertation.
Dear Ray
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. This is really
helpful and gives me a great way of moving forward with building my initial
theory framework.
Thanks again.
Ted Sherman
_____
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:39:34 +0000
Subject: RE: Questions about Aims, objectives and programme theory gathering
for an MSc dissertation.
Ted
Briefly.
First of all congratulations - you have a powerful finding. Programme
theories ALWAYS vary and sometimes clash as one slides along the
implementation chain. Moreover, there are hundreds of relevant programme
theories that can be applied to various points in the construction of any
intervention.
So?
RS always involves a ruthless selection of what may be considered the most
significant programme theories. Note I'm still writing in the plural there -
you'll be selective but always be chasing several families of theories.
And what if they clash and contradict? So much the better. You will be able
to 'adjudicate' between theories. Not by pronouncing winners and losers but
by finding which theory applies to particular subjects in particular
circumstances, at particular times, in particular respects, tra la la.
Ray
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ted sherman
Sent: 06 November 2012 21:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Questions about Aims, objectives and programme theory gathering for
an MSc dissertation.
Dear All
I am currently in my third year of a MSc in Public Health at the University
of the West of England and have just begun to work on my dissertation. I was
hoping someone could help me with a few things?
The working title of my dissertation is "A realist synthesis of community
based alcohol treatment for older people."
I would really appreciate it if someone could comment on my aims and
objectives as set out below? Do these correctly represent the outcomes that
could be expected from a realist synthesis? Do they make sense?:
Aim: To establish the main mechanisms, i.e. the elements and processes that
cause an intervention to produce a specific outcome, that exist within
community based treatment for older people with alcohol problems, and to
explain the influence that context has on these mechanisms.
Objectives: To refine and add to the existing theories of how, why and when
alcohol treatment for older people works.
To produce a programme of recommendations that can be used
by decision makers and practioners to develop and improve services.
Also, I am unclear about who I should make contact with to establish the
existing programme theories/folk theories that underpin alcohol treatment
programmes for older people? These theories will be used to develop the
initial theoretical framework within my research.
I am already in contact with numerous agencies operating within this field
but I cannot decide who within these organisations I should be collecting
theories from?
It seems highly possible that the programme theories held by a front-line
practioner will differ from the theroies held by the individual who designed
the service and again these may differ from those of the cheif officer
within the organisation. Can anyone suggest how I should deal with these
potentially differing or conflicting theories, or would it be more sensible
to simply state within my dissertation that I recognise that theories may
differ between individuals within an organisation and so for reaons of time
and pragmatism I will only gather theories from one group of individuals
(e.g. front-line practioners)?
I hope this makes sense?
And I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks
Ted Sherman.
_____
