Dear all,

I have been reading with interest the discussions on this forum, and am very grateful for the opportunity to pose my own question on realist evaluation. By way of a brief introduction, I am a researcher within the field of nutrition and international development, and have been tasked with evaluating a process facilitating closer intersectoral coordination between the agriculture and health sectors for nutrition in Zambia. I very much like the core concepts of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes used in RE, and after reading every RE paper I could get my hands on (particularly health evaluations), I am wondering whether I can use RE for my work. My main question is: As I am evaluating a facilitated process (rather than a standard intervention) and this will be undertaken initially in one location (between ministries in one district), will there be enough variation in ‘context’ to use RE? In the case of this study, where one overall process is being assessed, could different contexts potentially refer to the different ministries, actors and motivations brought to the process, or does context have to be physical location? The table below is a preliminary list of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes for the construction of MRTs (note that these are not yet to be read as combinations across rows)- Does anyone have a feeling of whether I am headed in the right direction, or barking up the wrong tree here? I have plenty of further background information on the project and preliminary thinking around study design and methods, should this grab anyone’s interest!

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Jody Harris

(SOAS)

Program* (Actions around implementation- not C/M/Os)	Contexts (Potential contexts that shape which mechanisms are activated)	Mechanisms (Plausible mechanisms through which the program might work)	Outcomes (Patterns of possible successes and failures in aligned service delivery)
Coordination meetings held	National policy environment	Workplans changed	Resource sharing between sectors
Innovative supervision / management promoted	Institutions and systems	Budgets altered	Joint planning between sectors
Intersectoral working advocated	Level of interaction between sectors	Understanding of key nutrition issue increased	Harmonized messaging and inputs at community level
Narrative of problem agreed and understood	Existence of nutrition ‘champions’	Commitment of key actors to coordination	Accountability through monitoring systems
Staff technical capacity increased	Availability of funds and other resources	Community buy-in / mobilization	Explicit nutrition activities in agriculture plans
Advocacy to all levels	Organizational and management structures	Staff strategic capacity strengthened	Implementation of agriculture nutrition activities enshrined in policy and workplans
	Other active stakeholders	Leadership enhanced
	Level of decentralized decisionmaking	Institutional learning improved
	Political commitment
	Coordinating body or mechanism for nutrition
	Human resources
	Level of implementation of policy

* This table was generated from an initial list that was brainstormed between the author and the coordination consultant, which resulted in some elements that were not C/M/O’s