Hi Monisha

There isn’t one right way to do it.  Either of the two approaches you have described below is OK.

 

Either way, there are a couple of things to watch out for:

• Developing the program theory tends to give you ‘positive’ CMOs – ‘this is how it’s supposed to work, we think’. Don’t forget to develop the ‘negative’ CMOs as well. (‘It doesn’t work for this group or in this context, because…’)
• Any program theory will have many CMOs. You won’t be able to test them all.  You need to prioritise the ones that need to be investigated.

Cheers

Gill

 

From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Monisha
Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 1:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Question

 

PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask]'" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">'[log in to unmask]' from the 'To:' section of your email.

Hi Everyone

 

I have a question regarding sequence of analysis of group discussion findings with program designers in RE :

1. Do we first create an initial program theory and then identify and break down CMOs and then test them through next level of data analysis (with program implementers and service users)?

     OR

2. Do we first analyse the group discussion data to identify different CMOs and then these CMO theories help in developing a coherent and all-inclusive initial program theory? 

 

Currently, I am using the second approach of first identifying all CMOs from program designers and  then combining everything together to form initial program theory.

 

Kindly suggest!

 

Cheers

Monisha

To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join