 |
 |
Bruno, You said: “mechanism are structure at work; structure at work are powers and powers are tendencies.” I think - great you mentioned this! May I just add that Bhaskar uses mechanism differently because he had a different pursuit, namely the re-vindication and expansion of our purview of ontology. And not just any purview of ontology but a realist purview - one which challenges the positivist malaise of our science, culture and unconscious minds. That positivist malaise could be understood as the lack of recognizing the existence of reality beyond the grasp of our senses. (i.e., evidence, and only evidence-based!). Insisting that mechanisms – powers and tendencies, are a part of reality (and even cause reality to manifest) was his radical contribution – and an investigation into the roots of western philosophy will uncover why he needed to say this. But Bhaskar was not a methodologist nor a pragmatist, he was a philosopher therein lies a chasm between the realism he developed and the small-scale application of such logic to research projects of the kind many of us on this forum are working through. That is why Pawson and Tilley’s work has been compelling. And, at least it seems to me, they reworked the definition of mechanism to make it functional for the study of programs and interventions that involve people. And I think it could be argued that reasoning/reactions by stakeholders of interventions are powers, and they are also tendencies (affinity toward, apathy, aversion etc) that get activated under certain contexts. And Gill: I imagine we would agree that mechanisms are not just defined as reasoning in the sense of rational actions.…they are also reactions, which can be conscious or unconscious, visceral, emotional and sometimes simply unexplainable. It may be a lot to digest, but coming to terms with all this is part and parcel of the process of improving our application of realist logic to our research areas. Perhaps other people might see it differently….? Justin Kind regards, Bruno M. Franceschetti Inviato da BlackBerry 10. Da: Trish Greenhalgh Inviato: lunedì 10 agosto 2015 09:07 A: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Rispondi a: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards Oggetto: Re: Defining mechanisms as processes? What Realist findings look like? PhD newbie questions Mandy Great question. But if this is a PhD I’m worried about this: “the word mechanism confuses some who are unfamiliar with Pawson & co’s version of a Realist Approach”. If they don’t understand this version of realism, they shouldn’t be examining your PhD. Negotiate with your supervisor to get examiners in the appropriate paradigm, THEN write the thesis for that audience. Also, inlcude – up front – a table of definitions. In THIS thesis, I am using the word ‘process’ to mean xxx. In viva, if challenged, refer to relevant table and page (which you will have flagged). PhD is a game. Trisha Greenhalgh Professor of Primary Care Health Sciences [cid:image001.jpg@01D0D44D.21083260] T: +44 (0)1865 289363 E: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> www.phc.ox.ac.uk<http://www.phc.ox.ac.uk> | @OxPrimaryCare<http://www.twitter.com/oxprimarycare> | @trishgreenhalgh<http://www.twitter.com/oxprimarycare> Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG From: Mandy McGirr <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Reply-To: "Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Mandy McGirr <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Monday, 10 August 2015 03:12 To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Defining mechanisms as processes? What Realist findings look like? PhD newbie questions the word mechanism confuses some who are unfamiliar with Pawson & co’s version of a Realist Approach