Thank you for that! I wonder if anyone had any information on justification, or information more generally, for a rapid realist review. 

Thanks,

Charlotte 

On 10 Apr 2018, at 10:18, Kidston, Clare <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks Geoff,

I am new to the realist approach & these are really helpful. Many thanks for sending. 

Clare

---

From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Geoff Wong <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 10 April 2018 08:14:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Justifying the use of realist approaches

 

Dear All,

A common issue that comes up when you plan to or have used a realist approach (i.e. realist review or realist evaluation) is the need to justify your choice of approach(es). This may happen, for example, in your thesis write-up or when making the case in a grant/funding application. Or you may need to convince colleagues that to address a research question, realist review and/or realist evaluation might provide more useful knowledge.

I am sure you all have your 'favourite' resources that you cite and/or refer others to, to make the case. For example, any of the seminal texts from Pawson and Tilley. But sometimes resources that make the case with in as short a space as possible can be helpful - especially if you are going to ask someone to read it :-)

A good starting point for open access resource will be the RAMESES Project website (www.ramesesproject.org).

Apologies in advance for the shameless plugging, but below are two sources you might want to share with others whom you have to convince about your choice of using realist review and/or realist evaluation (both are open access):

Making theory from knowledge syntheses useful for public health. Wong G. Int J Public Health 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-018-1098-2
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00038-018-1098-2

Getting to grips with context and complexity − the case for realist approaches. Wong G. Gaceta Sanitaria 2017 doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.05.010
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0213911117301474

Do please add to this thread the resources you have used to help others understand why using a realist review and/or realist evaluation approach was the rational choice :-D

Geoff

This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager at [log in to unmask] and delete this email immediately. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ulster University. 
The University's computer systems may be monitored and communications carried out on them may be recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. Ulster University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of a separate attachment, the text of email is not intended to form a binding contract. Correspondence to and from the University may be subject to requests for disclosure by 3rd parties under relevant legislation. 
The Ulster University was founded by Royal Charter in 1984 and is registered with company number RC000726 and VAT registered number GB672390524.The primary contact address for Ulster University in Northern Ireland is Cromore Road, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry BT52 1SA

This message and its attachment(s) are intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied, disclosed, forwarded or relied upon by any person other than the intended addressee(s) without the permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee you must not take any action based on this message and its attachment(s) nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please respond to the sender and ensure that this message and its attachment(s) are deleted. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and its attachment(s) are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this message or its attachment(s), or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Emails entering Edinburgh Napier University's system are subject to routine monitoring and filtering by Edinburgh Napier University. Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373