Hi all

I think the link I gave is not working but if you go to the Realism Leeds website MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "owa.liv.ac.uk" claiming to be http://realism.leeds.ac.uk// and click on the 'conference 2015' tab, Gill's presentation can be found on Day 1

All the best,

Katie

​

On 8 April 2016 at 14:38, KATIE SHEARN <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello Justin, Denise, All

Might I tentatively suggest that as Archer's work is a theory, those undertaking a realist evaluation or synthesis might draw on it to inform their theory building and refine any findings just as they would any other formal theory (whether it claimed to be within realism or not).  The theory's use being that of how well the ideas within it help to explain what the underlying causal forces are and how and in what circumstances they bring about change.

To this end, I think an important consideration suggested in Archer's morphogenetic approach is that of 'culture' and specifically separating culture and structure ontologically, as well as her ideas for how structure, culture and agency interact to bring about change.  I might be wrong but Pawson and proponents of his work do not discount this as a possibility.  Pawsons' ideas for thinking about context (and for that matter CMO configurations)  e.g. the 4 I's Infrastructure, Institution, Interpersonal and Individual are, I think, not meant to be exhaustive and are a device to disrupt/stimulate thinking rather than be prescriptive.  As a result, I think that within the theory building and testing/refinement elements of RE and RS it would be possible to utilise the morphogenetic approach to help provide plausible explanations for the change that is observed (or not).

One other consideration regarding the practicality and applicability of Archer's work to RE/RS would be that of scope and scale.  As a social theory I feel it might be useful for inquiries that consider change at a 'zoomed out' level e.g. looking at organisational change over time.  It might however, have less useful applicability to testing discreet interventions or indeed specific steps in an larger implementation chain.  What I mean is that whilst the theory might, at some level, be helpful, there is likely to be more specific theories that one could draw and focus on.   RE / RS have often been directed at the latter partly, I would suggest, because of the focus on testing theories, for which it is useful to have measurable outcomes which can be attributed, at least in part, to the addition of intervention resources and their influence on underlying generative mechanisms.  This is arguably easier to define and measure at a zoomed-in scale (although still not easy). 

That said, Gill's presentation at the Realism Leeds conference, which can be found here, MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "owa.liv.ac.uk" claiming to be http://realism.leeds.ac.uk/conference-videos/ does broach this idea of scope and scale, and she offers suggestions for the realist 'zoomed out' design which suggests including consideration  of 'layered theory', of which the Morphogenetic Approach could form part of.

I know this doesn't answer your question about what one might label Archer's work in terms of the various schools of realism but may offer some suggestion as to how one might use it within RE/RS.

Any thoughts on the above would be welcome

Warm wishes

Katie Shearn

PhD Researcher

Health and Wellbeing Research Institute - Postgraduate Research Centre

Sheffield Hallam University

Chestnut Court

Collegiate Crescent

Sheffield

S10 2BP

 

07727 010877

​

 

On 6 April 2016 at 14:40, Denise De Souza <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "owa.liv.ac.uk" claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "owa.liv.ac.uk" claiming to be [log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello Justin,
Let me place some disclaimers first - I happened into critical realism because my research topic required me to gain some knowledge about it.  I don't have formal academic or specific disciplinary training in philosophy or sociology though I'm interested in the both of them hence, my patchwork knowledge base.

That aside and in the spirit of inquiry, I was wondering where realist social theory would come in, in the scheme of things you suggest and how would realist evaluation/synthesis/review connect with it, if it does.  

While the link to Henry Wai-chung Yeung's article you've given is something that might be said for the field of Geography, there has been substantial development of social ontology by individuals who have written under the banner of critical realism - primarily Margaret Archer but also Douglas Porpora and Andrew Sayer too, perhaps - all three of whom, I believe, are sociologists.

I remember emailing one of the contributors to Critical Realism:Essential Readings and asking how come no one developed psychological ontology (if something like that makes sense) since in Bhaskar's Possibility of Naturalism, Chapter 3 there was a potential for developing it.  The response was that generally while there was the potential for development there, the way psychology was moving in the US and UK, there seemed to be greater interest in Rom Harre's discursive psychology, Vygotsky's work or the work of others - but less interest in Bhaskar's work.

But this was not the case for sociology.  Archer (1995, p.136) states in her book Realist Social Theory

Bhaskar's philosophical realism is therefore a general platform, capable of underpining various social theories ... his Transformational Model of Social Action (TMSA) can claim to be a social theory in its own right. Of course it is incomplete (taking on the philosophical under-labouring doesn't mean finishing the job for us), but this very incompleteness leaves room for exploring whether it can be complemented and supplemented by the morphogenetic/static approach. (Henceforth this is referred to as M/M).

So I am wondering 
1) what affiliation, if any, do realist evaluation, realist synthesis as methods have with Archer's work on social ontology and 
2) under which banner does her work fall (if the above possible affiliation does exist) in the eyes of the proponents/users of realist evaluation/realist synthesis  - does her work fall under the banner of critical realism, scientific realism, another realism? all of the above?  
Perhaps when there is some clarity about that - if people have the time, energy, interest and persistence to think through it, perhaps together - maybe we can all come closer to agreeing about what we agree on, what we disagree on and what we agree to disagree about.

Hope this makes some sense. 
Best,
Denise

Reference

Archer MS (1995) Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. USA: Cambridge University Press.

-- 

Katie Shearn

PhD Researcher

Health and Wellbeing Research Institute - Postgraduate Research Centre

Sheffield Hallam University

Chestnut Court

Collegiate Crescent

Sheffield

S10 2BP

 

07727 010877