Hi y'all
I think Tom is on the right lines here. I fear I might have said or written somewhere that 'mechanisms are theories'. But this is only so in sense that they are intangibles that you can't poke with stick. But they are real enough and in the world of evaluation consist of the collective, constrained choices of stakeholders in reaction to the programme.
It might help if we reserve the term 'theory' for propositions - if>then statements that can be tested and refined. CMOs are theories.
RAY
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of tom wengraf
Sent: 25 August 2011 08:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim summary - Theories local....
Only having joined the list and not having learned the terminology,
apologies for irrelevance. However in the conceptual scheme which is easiest
for me, I may have a theory that [there is in reality a mechanism M that
under certain contextual conditions (C) produces certain effects (O)]. This
theory of mine is subject to confirmation, disconfirmation, etc.
This does not mean that a mechanism that is shown to operate out there in
some real world is itself a theory. Indeed, I would suggest that a
[mechanism shown to operate] is not a theory but a reality; that an alleged
mechanism that does not exist does not exist.
Best wishes
Tom
P.S. Social science researchers interested in (BNIM): the
biographic-narrative interpretive method. For a free electronic copy of the
current version of the BNIM Short Guide and Detailed Manual , just click on
<[log in to unmask]> . Please indicate your institutional affiliation and
the purpose for which you might envisage using BNIM’s open-narrative
interviews, and I'll send it straight away.
The BNIM Short Guide and Detailed Manual builds on and develops ch. 6 and
12 of my earlier textbook, Qualitative Research Interviewing: biographic
narrative and semi-structured method (2001 Sage Publications) which has a
more general approach to semi-structured depth interviewing, interpretation,
and writing-up.
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Valéry Ridde
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interim summary - Theories local....
Dear all
Interesting also to read the following article (using also MTO case) written
by economists who use also the concept of "mechanism", using theory-based
evaluation literature but not realistic lit.
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.17
Ludwig, Jens, Jeffrey R. Kling, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2011. "Mechanism
Experiments and Policy Evaluations." Journal of Economic Perspectives,
25(3): 1738.
Still work to do about the concept and utilization of mechanism to follow
Astbury, B. and Leeuw, F.L. (2010) AJE.
Valéry
> De : Geoff Wong <[log in to unmask]>
> Répondre à : "Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving
> Standards" <[log in to unmask]>, Geoff Wong <[log in to unmask]>
> Date : Thu, 18 Aug 2011 05:15:56 +0100
> À : <[log in to unmask]>
> Objet : Re: Interim summary - Theories local....
>
> A good point... to avoid any confusion that comes from simplification :-)
....
>
> I would agree a mechansims is a form of theory. I did not say it wasn't,
> though I accept that my posting by implication may have suggested so.
(More
> interesting is the question of whether or not all mechanisms are
theories??)
>
> If we define a theory as "... an attempt to organize the facts some
> Œproven¹, some more conjectural within a domain of inquiry into a
> structurally coherent system.²
> [Klee R. Introduction to the philosophy of science. Cutting nature at its
> seams. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. It's only an example of a
> definition that I like as it is simple and easy to remember]
> .... then a mechanism is a theory and it would be surprising it is not as
in
> explaining 'how' an outcome is generated there is a degree of overlap with
> 'why'.
>
> Perhaps a 'better' explanation of what I was trying to say is that you
can't
> always just stop in a RS when you have 'found' a mechanism. More 'work' is
> often needed - is it reasonable to call this more theory? For example,
feeling
> safe may be a mechanism, but whether or not is is triggered will depend on
> context and also needs to be linked to the outcome of interest. An example
of
> the importance of having 'more' theory where feeling safe acts may be
found in
> Jackson et al.'s review on Moving to opportunity (MTO) (attached). In
brief
> summary (that does this review little justice) for this programme (MTO)
the
> refinement needed was to specify this feeling safe mechanism in more
detail.
> One finding was that moving to a 'better' new neighbourhood was a more
> positive experience for females (vs. males) as the former felt physically
> safer. (Which nicely ties in with Gill's comments that CMOs are also
theories
> ...)
>
> Geoff
|
