Hi folks
Have used Lego Serious Play for a realist synthesis of workforce planning tools that’s just being reported.
It’s quite an inclusive approach (everyone builds and describes a programme / intervention etc.) and accessible. People are encouraged to talk about their models rather than their view - helpful for those more reticent in a group setting. Depending on your approach, you can build a ‘shared model’ of a programme / intervention etc., and the activities towards this surface can also divergent opinions. Depending on how much time you have, and how creative you want people to be, then the Lego can surface connections between things in a model (in our case the workforce planning technology and its system) are related. It’s nothing like the red bricks, windows and doors that I grew up with.
The key challenge is time - a minimum of 1 day for a shared model of a programme. I’ve never advertised the methodology until everyone’s in the room! It might not be for everyone, but we’ve never had anyone walk out, and people do seem to enjoy some childhood memories. I’ve used with service users, clinicians, managers and leaders.
Happy for people to contact me for further information.
BW
Chris
Yr Athro / Professor Christopher R. Burton
Cadeirydd Ymchwil Nyrsio ac Adfer Noreen Edwards
Pennaeth yr Ysgol, Ysgol Gwyddorau Iechyd
Prifysgol Bangor,
Gwynedd LL57 2EF
Ffôn: +44 (0) 1248 382556 Ffacs: +44 (0) 1248 383114
Skype: christopher.burton20
@chrisburton5
Noreen Edwards Chair of Rehabilitation and Nursing Research
Head of School, School of Healthcare Sciences
Bangor University,
Gwynedd, LL57 2EF
Tel: +44 (0) 1248 382556 Fax: +44 (0) 1248 383114
Skype: christopher.burton20
@chrisburton5
On 26 Jan 2018, at 22:30, Gill Westhorp <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Sharon, Andrew and all
Sharon, I love the idea of the visual approach and would be really interested to hear how it goes. As a general principle, I think it’s really useful for the discussion list if people discuss their methods!
I’d like to pick up Andrew’s point about terminology. I agree that there are people for whom the CMO language is unhelpful, but I don’t believe it’s that hard to explain to most people, or to build into questions. More importantly I find that explaining the approach helps respondents to understand what it is you’re trying to get at, and helps them to participate in the interview. So I’ll often provide a couple of sentences of introduction.
When evaluating an intervention I might say something along the lines of: “We assume that nothing works for everyone or everywhere, so we’re trying to work out why it’s different in different circumstances.” (That’s context, of course, but it also starts to get at mechanisms.) And “Interventions themselves don’t cause change. They give people new resources or opportunities, but it’s how people respond to that that causes the change.” (Mechanism). And “And the results are different for different people too.”
I find that this gives people ‘permission’ to talk about how it was for them (participants) and about variety in outcomes (workers).
To go deeper into mechanism I ask people to talk to me about ‘their thinking in relation to…’ to get at reasoning and ‘how they feel about …’ to get at values (they often respond in terms of emotions first, but a bit of probing usually gets below that).
My problem with “If-then-leading to” is that “then” can elicit just ‘the next visible thing’, rather than getting ‘under the surface’ for mechanisms. I’d be really keen to hear how those who’ve used it get past that?
You can also use “If” (context), “Then” (immediate or intermediate outcome), “Because” (mechanism).
Of course – we all mix and match the ways we work within and between interviews and I don’t think there’s one right way to do it…
Would love to hear others’ techniques for this.
Cheers
Gill
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Booth
Sent: Saturday, 27 January 2018 8:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Evaluation Topic and idea for interviewing
Hi Sharon
Some really interesting ideas in your email. As someone supervising a realist PhD I would encourage you not to impose the unfriendly terminology of CMOs on your informants. In other words you need them to engage with realist logic for your evaluation without having to give them all a Realist 101 course!
So I would suggest you ask them to articulate the CMOs in a more readily accessible way. I have been very influenced by both Mark Pearson and Jo Rycroft Malone and so use the IF (Context) THEN (Mechanism) LEADING TO (Outcome) construction. By all means use the novel shaped post its but make the terminology more accessible.
Best wishes
Andrew
On 26 Jan 2018 21:29, "Provost, Sharon" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I first want to thank everyone who contributes questions and answers via the RAMESES mail group- every entry is unbelievably helpful!
I am a PhD candidate and beginning realist researcher so thank you in advance for your patience.
1) As I am just beginning my realist review and realist evaluation I wanted to check if anyone else is looking at the same topic with a realist approach: I am evaluating a violence prevention education program to decrease the violence and violence related injuries that healthcare workers experience from patients (those they provide care for). It is an international problem with a large volume of literature but I have not found any research at this point that has taken a realist approach. Is anyone out there doing a similar thing? 😀
2) I will be conducting about 45 interviews and 9-12 focus groups across 3 different organizations and 9 sites (I have funding, stakeholder buy-in, and some research assistant support). As my own learning/thinking style is visual and interactive an idea keeps surfacing in my head to use props in my interviews (and possibly in the focus groups) to visually explain the initial program theory and elicit ideas about the CMO configurations.
I thought about using:
* little cutout or 3D “people”
* a large piece of paper with a separate “classroom” and “workplace”
* small shaped post it notes
* circular “contexts”
* thought bubble “mechanisms”
* square “outcomes”.
I would populate some of the c,m,o stickies based on the initial program theory and leave some blank that could be filled in during the interview/focus group. In addition to taping the sessions I thought I could take photos of the configurations that participants create, validate or refute with a small piece of paper in the photo with the coded participant ID, date and time). I wondered if this would help participants quickly understand the realist focus on theory as opposed to more general approach they may have experienced in other interviews while keeping me focused on theory building.
Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you
Sharon Provost
Interdisciplinary PhD Candidate
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565
Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor.
This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office.
