Dear All.
 
I am back again to ask some, probably very simply, questions. But which are areas that I am a bit stuck on.
Hopefully some one won't mind giving me their thoughts or comments on these questions? Any help will be greatly appricated.
 
My questions are listed below:
 
1. I have just read a paper on research philosphy (Choosing The Appropriate Methodology: Understanding Research Philosophy, Holden, Date not known) and the description of Realist philosphy in this paper seems to differ from the descriptions given in papers/books written specifically about the realist research paradigm. Holden's paper describes there being a continuum between research with an extreme subjective philosophical stance (with an ontological view that reality is a projection of human imagination, and an epistemological stance that knowledge is gained through phenomenlogical insight/revelation) and those with an extreme objective philosophical stance (ontology = reality as a concrete structure; espistemology = knowledge gained through positvist scirence). Holden suggests that the realist philosphy is situated at the extreme objective end of the continuum. However, I was under the impresseion that realism occupied a more central place holding the view that whilst there is certainly a 'true' tangible reality it is one which is influenced and shaped by the observer/participant.  Could someone please help me unpick and understand this difference in describing the underpinning philosphy and what the correct description is?
 
2. Could someone please explain this idea of a 'stratified reality' which I have read about in relation to the realist research approcah? Am I correct in thinking that this refers to 'the view of reality being different at the various layers within society and that these realities affect one another and the mechansims being studied"? If I am correct this seems to link to my earlier question about from whom should I being gathering the data to produce the intiatl thereoretical framework in my research, does this make sense?
 
3. Why when collecting the data to build the intial framework in realist research is the data collected referred to as 'theories', where as when the research takes place the researcher is then looking to draw out and explore 'mechansims'? Are these not the same things? Or, am I correct in thinking that a theory is an idea/assumption of how a programme will work and these theories then become mechansims when put into action?
 
Many thanks in advance.
 
Ted Sherman.
MSc Public Health UWE.