2016-01-21 11:23 GMT+01:00 Andrew Hawkins <[log in to unmask]>:

At the risk of going out on a limb, to me the difference is the attention given to outcomes – with both critical realists and scientific realists/ realist evaluators ultimately concerned with the domain of the ‘real’ but the latter being more tuned into observing outcomes as a means to knowledge of this domain.

 

Andrew

 

From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gill Westhorp
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 11:10

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: two quick questions

 

Hi Lisa

Pawson quotes most of his sources in the early chapters of his books – it’s worth going back and checking what he’s referenced, and then reading those original sources.  I found it useful when I was a PhD student grappling with exactly this issue to make up ‘comparison tables’ of similarities and differences between the various authors, so that I really got my head around the variants.

 

I don’t think I agree that one is the philosophy and the other is the methodology.  As Patrick has intimated, critical realists have methodology; and scientific realists have philosophy  – it’s just that there are slightly different philosophical positions between the two.

 

Beware the temptation to draw too clear a distinction between the two perspectives.  They have a lot in common, and there isn’t a single clear boundary between ‘the camps’.   (Nor for that matter are there only two camps.)

 

I think it is useful to break down ‘philosophy’ to think about ontology (‘what’s the nature of reality’), epistemology (‘what can we know about reality and how do we know it’) and axiology (the philosophy of values).   In my view, critical and scientific realist share a common set of beliefs about how causation works (an aspect of ontology), but have different axiological perspectives (what might normally be considered political stances) which contribute to methodological stances which in turn generate slightly different methods (although that said, I can’t off the top of my head think of a method that couldn’t be used for either, should one wish... it’s really the nature of the questions asked and the interpretations made, I think, that distinguishes the two).    

 

This will be a topic addressed in the Rameses II training materials a little further down the line and I’d be delighted to hear from others on this list about how you see the similarities and differences.

 

Cheers

Gill

 

From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lisa Morgan
Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 8:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: two quick questions

 

Isn't critical realism the philosophy and realist analysis the vehicle (methodology) to uncover the "real". Sorry to get caught up in the semantics but I need to make sure I understand this before I defend.

 

Lisa

 

Lisa Morgan, R.M., B.Sc., B.H.Sc., MA

Midwifery Education Program

Laurentian University

935 Ramsey Lake Road

Sudbury, ON Canada P3E 2C6

Tel: 705-675-1151 ext. 3969

Toll free: 1-800-461-4030

Fax: 705-675-4830

[log in to unmask]

 

>>> Patrick Harris <[log in to unmask]> 30/12/2015 4:45 PM >>>

Hi yes Andrew sayer. Roy bhaskar. Dannermark et al.

 

Critical realists use theory and data during analysis (see all above) in a different way to realists. Realists like pawson are more empirical

 

I use this in my policy focused work. Best published example is social science and medicine 2014

 

Hope helps

 

Patrick harris 

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Dec 2015, at 11:08 pm, "Nesta Roberts" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Merry christmas everyone and a happy new year, 

 

A quick introduction for those of you I have not met. I am PhD student at Bangor, Wales studying 'Improving the discharge of people with dementia from the acute to community: A realist perspective'

 

I just have two simple questions...

 

Firstly, I am just in the write up stage of the methodology chapter and I want to gain better insight into the initial start up of realism and realist synthesis and delve into more philosophy. What books and articles would people recommend? I do own most of Pawson's books but I wondered what other good sources were out there.

 

Secondly, I am using positioning theory as a form of data analysis and wondered if this had been done before as I have been unable to source any articles or examples? 

Kindest Regards,

Nesta Roberts

Doctorate Fellowship RCBC Wales

School of Healthcare Sciences

College of Health and Behavioural Sciences University of Wales,

Bangor Fron Heulog Ffriddoedd Road Bangor Gwynedd

Mobile 07534667121

e-bost • e-mail  [log in to unmask]

http://www.rcbcwales.org.uk/current-members/nesta-roberts/

 

---

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:04:57 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: useful theories of trust?
To: [log in to unmask]

There was a strong interest in theories of trust during the late eighties and early nineties that coincided with some of the larger debates about social order and the end of the cold war.  One edited volume that I found very interesting is "

Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Gambetta 1990.  It doesn't offer any overarching theory of trust, but the discussions were interesting.  Giddens offers another discussion of trust in "The consequences of modernity."  It is an interesting build up of his discussions about structure and agency.     I found that his work builds upon Simmel's discussions of trust, even if he doesn't explicitly cite him.    As it relates to healthcare, Gidden's notion of trust in people vs. trust in expert systems is useful.   In healthcare, in the states, there has always been a debate about the ability to choose one's own doctor that is laden with trust issues.   One argument is that people should be highly informed consumers who can make rational choices among a set of options, i.e., trust in an expert system--the market and science.  The other is that people has to trust a person who they believe is honest and has their best interest at heart.  

 

I haven't found discussions of Giddens' trust studies in healthcare.  Frankly, I haven't seen much research on his idea of expert systems, although I think it would be useful for policy discussions.   In some respects, evaluators are people who assess expert systems, so it would be easy to not look at them as expert at all.   Yet, I took for granted that my VW Diesel was really clean diesel.  

 

---

Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:16:25 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: useful theories of trust?
To: [log in to unmask]

Hi Jo,

A team at the University of Dundee are conducting a review of reviews on how trust has been theorised and conceptualised in the literature in relation to healthcare. Our trust review will then feed into a Realist Synthesis of community engagement approaches to enhance trust and increase participation of Gypsy/Travellers in healthcare services. We hope to report the trust review next year.

So watch this space!

Best wishes

Alison McFadden

 

Dr Alison McFadden PhD, RM

Senior Research Fellow

School of Nursing and Health Sciences

University of Dundee

11 Airlie Place

Dundee, DD1 4HJ

+44 (0)1382 388735

 

 

 

From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joanne Spangaro
Sent: 23 November 2015 11:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: useful theories of trust?

 

 

Hi all, 

 

Can anyone  recommend useful sources for theories of trust?   Im drowning in the possibilities. 

 

The specifics is to understand how trust is possible between individuals receiving support from lay persons from their own communities (in this instance refugees) so its stuff about 1:1 trust but not quite trust in health professionals. Either something sufficiently over arching or specifically relevant would be tre wonderful 

 

Jo Spangaro 

University of New South Wales 

Australia

The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096