 |
 |
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] from the 'To:' section of your email. Dear Justin, Do correct me if I have misunderstood your reply to Marc's question. It does seem that evidence from a realist synthesis is what you referred to as "evidence inspired", and that from a realist evaluation is "evidence-based"? Or perhaps this is regarding inferring evidence from a similar area, versus one in which there is available evidence that speaks directly to that area. I was reading this article <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1015> by Kumah (2019) and one of the main differences between evidence inspired and evidence based practice was that the former is more flexible, less hierarchical in its approach to ranking of evidence, and more integrative of its use of different kinds of evidence. I am trying to reconcile this description with your comments - re: evidence inspired/evidence-based practice as it relates to realist synthesis and evaluations. I would be grateful if you could explain a bit more. Thanks, Yakubu From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Justin Jagosh Sent: Saturday, 22 May 2021 8:59 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Indirect evidence 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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> from the 'To:' section of your email. Dear Marc, You wrote: What are the ways in which a mechanism can be inferred when the degree of richness within pieces of evidence is low? Rely on the principles of transferability and transparency. Transferability: Is there an evidence-based theory in another sector or area that you can use to support your inference - looking internationally you will examples of such integration, or maybe not. Transparency: If you can not locate suitable evidence, describe why that is. One possibility is the fact you may be the first in your field to construct such as theory. But if that is true, can you interview key stakeholders and have them adjudicate on your theory. If you are trying to answer this through synthesis alone, - earmark the theory in 'section for future research' in which you propose the need for first hand data collection on the important bits that did not get tested in the synthesis due to lack of evidence. It may an evidence-inspired theory that over time becomes an evidence-based theory. Regulation as a pre-condition to integration is a reasonable idea. Keep building up your thinking around the theory area. The peripheral parts of your theorizing may end up becoming central over time. Best of luck, Justin ___________________________________________________________________ Justin Jagosh, PhD Director, Centre for Advancement in Realist Evaluation and Synthesis (CARES) <http://www.realistmethodology-cares.org/> www.realistmethodology-cares.org & Honorary Associate, University of Liverpool Jagosh, J. (2020) Retroductive Theorizing in Pawson and Tilley's Applied Scientific Realism. Journal of Critical Realism. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14767430.2020.1723301> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14767430.2020.1723301 From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > On Behalf Of Marc Sanders Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 1:43 AM To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Indirect evidence 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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> from the 'To:' section of your email. Dear all, I am currently creating a realist review on integration of chiropractic care into healthcare systems worldwide. I have a question regarding indirect evidence and causality. As part of the review, I am speaking with stakeholders that are representatives of chiropractic care services in their respective countries in order to find additional sources of evidence that would not be possible through an empirical search. As an example, for a country where the chiropractic profession has not yet obtained regulation, a theory statement in this context is that there is no integration due to a lack of regulation, and that by a country having regulation this will improve the chances of integration. Could I infer that lack of regulation is a key factor, from a set of documents showing the struggle of a chiropractic profession to obtain regulation within a specific country due to political influences but with no explicit mention of integration? I.e., what is the cut of limit of inferred/indirect mechanism from a source of evidence? Would I have to obtain a piece of evidence that directly states this in text, or can it be inferred from a body of evidence? What are the ways in which a mechanism can be inferred when the degree of richness within pieces of evidence is low? Kind regards, Marc Marc Sanders DC MSc PGCert MRCC (Public Health) Marc Sanders PhD Student Primary Care & Population Sciences (PCPM) Faculty of Medicine University of Southampton Aldermoor Health Centre Aldermoor Close Southampton SO16 5ST <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Email: [log in to unmask] <https://twitter.com/uos_primarycare> https://twitter.com/uos_primarycare <http://www.southampton.ac.uk/medicine> www.southampton.ac.uk/medicine To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join