Dear Ben
We would push the boundaries further and included stakeholder evaluation approaches, emotional touchpoints as well as co –observation methods too in our approach.
Please see recent report – just in the process of working on publications
BEST WISHES
Kim
Professor Kim Manley CBE, (Joint Clinical Chair)
Associate Director Transformational Research and Practice Development
East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation trust (EKHUFT)
email:
[log in to unmask] Tel: 01227 766877 x 7222523 Mob: 07805 791606
Professor & Co-director England Centre for Practice Development (ECPD), Canterbury Christ Church University [log in to unmask]
PA: Lisa Sheene
[log in to unmask] 01843 225544 Ext 62257
Adminstrator ECPD: Sara Travers [log in to unmask]
Please note: I work 3 days/week at EKHUFT and 2 days/week at the
ECPD flexibly. I apologise for any delay that may therefore result in responding to your email
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bree Weizenegger
Sent: 19 January 2018 06:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Interviewing differences between critical realist research and realist evaluation
Hello realist explorers.
My question is regarding whether anyone here is aware of any differences in qualitative interviewing between a realist evaluation approach, and a broader critical
realist approach. I know that this question is perhaps part of a larger question that I am still grappling with, in relation to the differences between realist evaluation and critical realism research. But as you may know, information on how to conduct critical
realist research is sparse from within the philosophical/social science literature, and realist evaluation (and it's CMO configuration) is something which has been more accessible for me in planning my research thus far.
I have read quite a bit of Pawson and Tilley's writings regarding interviewing (and an excellent article by Ana Manzano (2016) The craft of interviewing in realist
evaluation, Evaluation 22(3), 342-360), so am aware of the difference between realist and a more phenomenological/constructivist focus on interviewing. I'm just concerned that I might be launching into my interviewing believing 'the subject is there
to confirm, falsify and refine the theory', and with this focus, be missing something from a critical realist perspective.
Any thoughts would be helpful - thanks in advance,
Bree.
Bree Weizenegger | PhD candidate
Department of Social Work | Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010 Australia
T: +61 413 543 303