Greetings, Dr. Westhorp!

Oh, thank you for your reply! Between yours and Dr. Wong's, I might just end up okay in all of this (smile!).

I want ASAP to order the Sayer book you recommended, but at Amazon.com the only similar title I see by Sayer is

Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. Sage linked here:
http://www.amazon.com/Realism-Social-Science-Andrew-Sayer/dp/0761961240/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391857850&sr=1-1&keywords=realism+in+social+science

Is that the book you meant? 

Or did you mean this, which has the author and year you shared but NOT the title:
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. Routledge . . . linked here: http://www.amazon.com/Method-Social-Science-Revised-2nd/dp/0415076072/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391858204&sr=1-1&keywords=method+in+social+science+a+realist+approach ?

Also, I noticed this PowerPoint about RE of yours, Dr. Westhorp: https://www.scphrp.ac.uk/system/files/publications/public_presentation_-_glasgow_draft_1.pdf.

Does such a one exist for RS? I am submitting a collection of RS sources to my thesis committee members and advisor, and I would LOVE to include among the articles, websites, and books a PowerPoint such as this. I think it would really help them.

Re: mechanisms . . . I'll have to read Sayer to see how to get around inferring thinking since I'm doing an RS and not an RE and will not be interviewing subjects.

I will print your post so that I can think about it more (thank you so much for it). There was this theory I was planning to use that was basically going to allow me to view speech and communication (behaviors) as entailing thinking. I was planning to run with that . . . and thus code intermediate outcomes (that are in the forms of written and spoken communication) as acts entailing thinking, reasoning, and decision-making, thus being mechanisms. But maybe in realism spoken and written speech are are just INDICATORS of mechanisms -- which would be outcomes -- because, as you said, in realism mechanisms are the invisible reasoning, thinking, etc. In that theory I planned to use, however, communication is not just behavior but is thought as well. 

Hmm. I'll read Sayer and go from there. This all will make for interesting discussion in my discussion section: The book that contains the theory I mentioned is making an important impact in my field. It is interesting that realism and that theory might be incommensurate. :/ 

I guess that would be the case if in realism mechanisms MUST be invisible. I thought it was more typically or usually invisible. Gotta get the Sayer book (smile).

Question: Since I am doing an RS and not an RE, then "getting inside [subjects'] heads," as you phrased it, would entail inferring that certain thinking or reasoning must have occurred, using substantive theory to justify the inference, and based on the exhibited behavior (speech, writing, etc.), yes? I won't be able to interview these subjects. I'll be reading excerpts from empirical studies and . . . inferring . . . yes?

Well, I'll close there. Thank you all for helping me think my way through this. I sooooo love this methodology. Glad to be baby-stepping my way into it. I look to the future and feel this experience will have informed my identity as a researcher in the most positive way.

Blessings!

Mickey

P.S. Please excuse the typos. They drive me crazy, but I never see them until I've hit send.