JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for RAMESES Archives


RAMESES Archives

RAMESES Archives


RAMESES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

RAMESES Home

RAMESES Home

RAMESES  August 2011

RAMESES August 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Interim summary - Theories local....

From:

Geoff Wong <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards" <[log in to unmask]>, Geoff Wong <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:43:44 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (24 lines)

Theories are a central part of RS. Perhaps a simplfied way of thinking about their role may be that MECHANISMS address the 'How' question, whereas THEORY provides the 'why', in particular explaining the relationship between CMOs.

WHICH, WHERE, HOW etc.
Whilst it might be that in primary realist research (realist evaluation) identifying relevant theories can prove to be a challenge, in realist synthesis (RS), the opposite seems to be true.
The proposition was put forward that there is no such thing as a new theory, just variations on a theme and some of you may know the 'joke' about there being only three types of interventions - carrots, sticks and sermons. The more serious point is that theories do exist, but often need 'refinement' to make them useful. So, whilst a theory may relate to a specific mechanism, our job is to work out and explain what happens to this specific mechanism in the intervention type we are interested in.
By having 'distance' or an overview from the data, there may in fact be too many theories and knowing which one to choose, why and at what level of abstraction can be a daunting task. The point made was that we can look for theory from a whole range of disciplines and what we are trying to explain may be related to the type of question that we are trying to answer. Perhaps a number of pointers may help on this front:
- it may seen obvious but it maybe worth remembering what the point of the theory is- to help us make sense of the patterns we can see in the data (well at least some of these). So the first reason for choosing any theory would be because we suspect that it maybe able to help us make sense of the data?
(There is an interesting discussion about this intial 'leap' (or retroduction) in the thread 'Interim summary - how much should we impugn...')
- it may not matter which theory we start off with, hence some of you will recall the term 'candidate theory'. The point is we have to start somewhere BUT then have to test our 'chosen' theory. There may be many false starts and the frustration maybe more with how many 'candidates' we have to reject before we get the right one :-( 


LEVEL OF ABSTRACTTION
Explaining patterns in the data may require iterative searching for theory which may lie at different levels of abstraction. So in some cases a set of theories you have found may be 'subsumed' by a theory that is more abstract or even a different theory.
There is a potential tension here between wanting to explain the patterns in the data which may require more and more abstract theory and the need to be able to test that theory (in effect the theory needs to be middle-range) [There is a thread on middle-range theory though that asks what exactly does it mean for a theory to be middle-range].


Perhaps the overall message with theory is that the process is iterative and the search continues until theory that is the 'current best available that is testable within the time and resources we have' is found? Whatever we come up with will always potentially be superseded and the theory just needs to be coherent and plausible enough for now?


ARGUMENTATION
The above may just nicely tie into the process that keeps us reviewers 'honest' :-)
Through argument, we have to defend our the coherent and plausible theories that we believe explain (at least some of) the patterns in our data. This may happen (for example) within a review team and with other academics. Though as it was pointed out, there are 'good' arguments and 'bad' ones. Why the latter may happen is given an airing in Friedman's designed blindness paper (see Interim summary - designed blidness).

Geoff

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager