Hi Ted

In brief, some references and replies for your questions below.

 

1.       Like everything else, there are many uses of the term realism.  I found Hammersley’s distinctions between ‘naļve realism’ and ‘subtle realism’ useful. (Hammersley, M. (1992/2002) Ethnography and Realism, reprinted in Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M.B.  (2002) The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, Sage, pp 65-80.)  Incidentally, Pawson and Tilley termed their construct ‘scientific realism’ (see Realistic Evaluation for their framing of it.) It sounds as though Holden is using realism in the sense that Hammerlsey refers to as ‘naļve realism’, which others might refer to as positivism. My understanding is that ‘subtle realism’, critical realism, scientific realism were all constructed to sit between the extremes of positivism and constructivism.  However, because a) words have many meanings, b) interpretations vary and evolve, and c) ‘there’s no such thing as final truth or knowledge’ (a realist tenet):  there isn’t a ‘correct’ description (except in so far as one should make sure that one understands and accurately represents whichever author one is discussing at the time).

2.      There are at least two meanings for the notion of ‘stratified reality’.  One is of ‘systems within systems’ – every system comprises sub-systems and is part of larger systems, regardless of whether one is discussing material reality, social reality, or ideas.  The other is Bhaskar’s philosophical construct of the empirical, the actual and the real (in A Realist Philosophy of Science).  Both constructs are, in my view, necessary to an understanding of realism.  Don’t know if it will help but my article in the most recent edition of Evaluation looks at one strategy for ‘layering’ theory to reflect the stratified nature of systems.

3.      The term ‘theory’ can refer to everything from grand overarching theories (e.g. Marxism, realism) to hypotheses (P&T list 13 levels in Realistic Evaluation).  I find the following distinction more useful: theory can refer to philosophy (both ontology and epistemology will be required), to substantive theory in particular domains, to program theory, and to evaluation theory.  The reference to ‘initial theories’ usually refers to program theory, which itself may include ‘theory of action’ (the theory about what will be done) and ‘theory of change’ (the theory about why that will create a different outcome).  A realist program theory is a particular form of a theory of change, and takes a particular structure (CMOs).  Yes, mechanisms are theories in themselves, but they only form part of a realist program theory.  Best advice on this is to go back and read Realistic Evaluation.

Hope some of this helps!

Cheers

Gill

 

From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ted sherman
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2012 1:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: A few more questions which I could do with help on.

 

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.