Thanks very much, Trish, for circulating this paper. I shall definitely draw on it. Best wishes, Sandy
Sandy Oliver, PhD, Professor of Public Policy
Social Science Research Unit and EPPI-Centre,
Public
engagement with academic research: outsiders bring
(a) independence for oversight
(b)
experiential knowledge for designing studies
(c) practical and problem solving skills for data collection and analysis, and
(d) an inquiring mind for research informed citizenship.
http://bit.ly/YeT0w2
Twitter @profsandyoliver
Trish Greenhalgh
Professor of Primary Health Care and Dean for Research Impact
Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry
58 Turner St
London E1 2AB
UK
+44 20 7882 7325
@trishgreenhalgh
Nick – I’m about to display my dreadful ignorance – again! – so I’ll confess in advance I haven’t read the paper. But do you think this paper would be as useful for a meta-narrative review (Alexandra’s question) as a realist one?
Cheers
Gill
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Nick Emmel
Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2014 6:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How to apply the "principle of peer review" as a doctoral candidate
Hi Alexandra,
I find this paper provides a useful methodological guide here:
Greenhalgh T, Humphrey C, Hughes J, Macfarlane F, Butler C, & Pawson R (2009). How do you modernize a health service? A realist evaluation of whole-scale transformation in London. Milbank Quarterly, 87(2), 391-416.
See pages 396-397 and 413 in particular—‘a task achieved through much negotiation and contestation’
Best wishes
Nick
Dr Nick Emmel | School of Sociology and Social Policy | University of Leeds |Leeds |LS2 9JT
+44 (0) 113 343 6958 | Twitter @NickEmmel | Blog
http://realistmethods.wordpress.com/
Emmel ND (2013) Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: a realist approach. London. Sage. http://goo.gl/yYydFd
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Reith, Alexandra
Sent: 03 September 2014 23:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: How to apply the “principle of peer review” as a doctoral candidate
Hello!
This is a newcomer writing to you, who works on her dissertation,
aiming to clarify the development of moral thinking and prosocial action and thereby considering pedagogical implications.
I admit: 1. My project does not directly touch the health sector. 2. I have to dedicate a respectable part of my energy on teaching social work students (at a university of applied science in northern Germany).
However, the meta-narrative review might be –even so time consuming– the most appropriate approach to my research question.
What I wonder about is how to manage the task of organizing peer reviews (discuss my findings with people of a range of disciplines, e.g. a number of psychological sub-disciplines, economy, genetics, neurosciences, and sociobiology).
I do not work in a multi-disciplinarian team!? No team at all!?
I mainly concentrate on articles published in English and do my writing in German.
No question, there are certain excellent German speaking experts identifiable...
Most of them producing one research paper after the other…
What, if I send one part of my manuscript (the storylines) to each of them?
Would you expect them to be interested in reading and commenting on it?
Any experiences, any guess? What would you suggest?
Thank you for any recommendations in advance.
Best regards, Alexandra
Alexandra Reith
University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer
Department of Social Work and Health
Constantiaplatz 4
26723 Emden
Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)4921 807 1214
Fax: +49 (0) 4921 807 1251
Email: [log in to unmask]
Homepage: http://www.hs-emden-leer.de/profile/reith-alexandra.html