HI Gill
Thanks for your response. This is really helpful.
You are right about my use of words to describe mechanisms, I was struggling to offer an easy to understand explanation but in doing so I missed the key element. I agree, 'reasoning' is by far the most useful term to use here. Thank you.
Your explanation of 'who to talk to' is great. Thanks again.
Ted Sherman
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 21:16:51 +0930
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questions about Aims, objectives and programme theory gathering for an MSc dissertation.
To: [log in to unmask]
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.
