Rebecca

What an extraordinary upbeat response. It is very clear from the
reflections below that you are a true scholar - willing to learn from
"failure" and also take a mature and dual perspective on this term. On the
one hand there may be paradigm issues with your examiners BUT on the other
hand, in retrospect you might have handled these issues differently. If
only you could see the number of rejection letters that Geoff, Ray and I
have had from people who didn't 'get' realist review - BUT these letters
also describe things we should genuinely improve on.  The RAMESES
statement (which is nearly ready!) will hopefully provide the kind of
benchmark that will avoid the need for guesswork by either students or
exmainers.

Of course it doesn't matter at all that you "failed" the first attempt at
the dissertation SO LONG AS you pass the second attempt. Is there anything
we on the RAMESES list can do to help?  For example, might we share a
draft outline of the RAMESES statement for you to include as an appendix?
Or would this just upset the examiners and count against you? Are you
allowed to seek peer review of your draft?  Check the regs and let us know
how we can help. This is as much about the paradigm as the individual!
 

Prof Trisha Greenhalgh
Global Health, Policy and Innovation Unit
Centre for Primary Care and Public Health
Blizard Institute
Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Yvonne Carter Building
58 Turner Street
London E1 2AB
t : 020 7882 7325 (PA) or 7326 (dir line)
f : 020 7882 2552
e: [log in to unmask]
Twitter @trishgreenhalgh







On 29/05/2012 14:51, "Rebecca Hardwick" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Hi Ramesesians, 
>
>Just thought I'd update on what happened with my student MSc dissertation
>(for those of you that don't know/remember I used a realist review
>methodology to study the one stop shop for women offenders).
>
>I submitted it just before Christmas, and got feedback in mid February...
>and the bad news is I failed. 4 points off.  The feedback from my markers
>indicated they felt I had not provided enough evidence as to why the PICO
>approach had not been used for my search strategy, felt that I had not
>made enough of middle range theories in my literature review and
>discussion, and found the 'results' section of the dissertation confusing
>(they should have tried writing it....!)  The feedback from one marker in
>particular was very supportive of me trying out a new methodology, and in
>discussions we've had since, he's reminded me that it isn't the whole
>thing that needs rewriting, just some bits which needed further
>explanation.  The irony of this is not lost on me.
>
>The good news is there are two assessment attempts at the University of
>the West of England, so I am resubmitting my dissertation to them Mid
>July, having gone over the project and re-done the bits which need
>attention. 
>
>My reflections on using RR in a student dissertation are
>
>a) start MUCH earlier as it is a very long process and whilst the quality
>of theorising improved throughout the review, the pressure to write up
>before the review was finished was immense and unhelpful to clear
>thinking.
>
>b) check out that your faculty and you share an understanding of what a
>realist review is, and what it is not.  I experienced a real difficulty
>in deciding the extent to which my examiners would have knowledge of
>realist approaches and therefore how much I needed to include as
>'justification' of why RR work the way they do; and whether this should
>be weaved throughout the dissertation, or emphasized in the methods, or
>written as an appendix.  I also had to work quite hard not to sound
>defensive of RR approaches which in turn made my section on the
>'weaknesses' of my methodology difficult to complete thoroughly.
>
>c) think carefully about how you'll write it up and get agreement from
>your tutor on this. I assumed I would have to make it fit the traditional
>lit review, methods, 'experiment', data/results, analysis, discussion
>headings.  In hindsight I think I was wrong to assume this, so worth
>checking this out.
>
>d) remember that whilst it's lovely to think you might get published off
>the back of your dissertation, the main purpose of it is to learn how to
>do research. 
>
>e) it is worth doing (an RR) because it provides you with a really deep
>and thorough understanding of the subject area, and is actually quite
>exciting to see how different research methods create different
>'answers'. 
>
>The great happy ending to this story though is that I have got a new job
>partly thanks to my experiences.  I am now an associate research fellow
>at the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry in Exeter, leading a
>realist review into the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of shared
>care.  I'm working with Rob Anderson, Mark Pearson and Chris Cooper, who
>are also Ramesesians.  I was honest about my Masters experience at
>interview, and found it heartening that they empathised with some of the
>issues I had struggled with (how to document theorising, determining the
>right level of abstraction, searching).  I've been here for about a month
>now and have learnt so much, it's a great team and turning out to be a
>really interesting project.
>
>So that's it from me for now, but I am sure I'll be in touch again -
>we're writing up a 'routemap' for the project - like a protocol but
>different - so I will share that when we're ready.  Really looking
>forward to RAMESES reporting.
>
>Thanks to everyone for their responses to posts I made last year, I
>really valued them, and I found this forum a good place to come and learn
>the methods, as well as share experiences and ask questions.