Uh oh!
I just read, in Pawson and Manzano-Santaella (2012) "A realist diagnostic workshop" this paragraph (p. 185) about realist reviewers's use of TABLES containing rows of
C + M --> O
C + M --> O
C + M --> O
configurations:
"Alas, researchers have found another way to interpret and produce these tables. Given the endless
complexity of programmes and the situations in which they are embedded, it is a task in itself
to contemplate the very many ways in which change might be engendered, the multiple constituencies
of stakeholders and their myriad responses. Several researchers have thus taken the realist task
to be the enumeration of the explanatory ingredients. One can propel investigation down the columns
(especially if they are presented with gridlines). In so doing, the explanatory elements
become atomized and disconnected. CMO configurations become unconfigured and transform into
CMO catalogues. We examine two examples, each providing illustrations of the drawbacks and
their consequences."
I guess that's turning the study more into a grounded theory study than a realist review? If so, that's kind of good news: I won't feel compelled to do such a bottoms-up analysis on top of all the code book making, precoding, preliminary coding, CMOc and MOc -ming, analysis, synthesis, reporting, etc., etc. ESPECIALLY at the level of the Master's degree, perhaps.
Hmm.
Back I go to finishing up the Pawson & Manzano-Santaella article . . . (so grateful to have it!)
Mickey
|