Dear All
Two naïve wonderings from a non-MNR practitioner.
1. I loved Nick's bit about interest in causation but I wonder - is that as
applicable in MNR as it is in realist approaches?
2. My understanding of MNR is that it looks across research traditions. I
wonder whether thinking about what each of those separate traditions
'traditionally offers' would help in thinking through what the synthesis
itself might provide for funders and end-users? My assumption in wondering
this is that a synthesis would identify both the separate traditions'
offerings and something in addition to that - hence making it an attractive
value-for-money proposition.
Cheers
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Emmel
Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2014 1:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: the "so what?" question in meta-narrative reviews
Dear All,
Just been reading David Byrne's paper, Thoughts on a pedagogy OF complexity
(2014) Complicity 11(2):40-50 while preparing a talk for a bunch of clinical
trialists (once more into the breach, dear friends, once more!) about what
is realist evaluation. This adds to Trish, Marie-Hélène, and others very
useful and practical advice, with a thought at least, I hope
incorporating 'causal accounts' [is] 'what makes [realist theories]
scientific narratives as opposed to mere recountings of what has
happened. Their essential characteristic is that they are stories of how
things have come to be as they are. The causal focus enables us, we
hope, to be able to say something about how things might be in
the future because understanding of causes is fundamental for social
interventions to achieve desired outcomes.'
Best wishes
Nick
Dr Nick Emmel
School of Sociology and Social Policy
University of Leeds
Leeds
LS2 9JT
+44 (0) 113 343 6958
EMMEL ND (2013) SAMPLING AND CHOOSING CASES IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A
REALIST APPROACH LONDON SAGE http://goo.gl/YOpct0
________________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Trish Greenhalgh
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 September 2014 16:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: the "so what?" question in meta-narrative reviews
Agree with Marie-Helene’s suggestions below, but also, to avoid getting
’stuck’ in a MNR, keep asking “what does the client
[funder/sponsor/policymaker] want out of this review?”. And try to present
your emerging findings periodically to an interdisciplinary group of peers.
The challenge with reviewing literature from heterogeneous sources is
avoiding that sense of ’swamp’ where there seems to be no clear research
traditions (and an excess of theory-hopping) in the primary data.
Have you seen the resources page from the RAMESES project – see training
materials and quality standards.
http://www.ramesesproject.org/index.php?pr=Project_outputs
Trish Greenhalgh
Professor of Primary Health Care and Dean for Research Impact Barts and the
London School of Medicine and Dentistry
58 Turner St
London E1 2AB
UK
+44 20 7882 7325
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
@trishgreenhalgh
From: Marie-Hélène Paré
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: "Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving
Standards" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
Marie-Hélène Paré
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Friday, 19 September 2014 17:08
To: "Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards"
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: the "so what?" question in meta-narrative reviews
Dear Paula,
Thanks for your output. I completed a meta-narrative review on community
participation in health programs which you can see the content
here<https://www.academia.edu/6543339/Meta-narrative_review_on_community_par
ticipation_in_health>. You can listen to the webinar on YouTube video
here<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlXSd0I6F1Q>. It was the qualitative
arm of a mixed method, doctorate study.
I am a firm believer that meta-narrative reviews contribute to practical
outcomes – such as decision making frameworks you’re referring to - when the
output they produce contributes to shed light theoretically or
epistemologically to the research topic. Perhaps one way to help you
thinking in that direction is to brainstorm the following questions:
1. What [conceptual / theoretical] problem will my findings [partially]
help to solve?
2. How will my findings help understanding better the phenomenon?
3. What form / shape could my findings take?
4. How can they be used? By whom? And when?
The output of my synthesis was a typology of community participation and, in
that sense, it is a tool that help thinking how participation is enacted
across a spectrum of participation manifestations. It is a tool of reference
that, I hope, will guide better assessment and reporting of participation.
Best of luck,
Marie-Hélène
_____________________________________
Marie-Hélène Paré
Consultant in Qualitative Data Analysis
Lecturer in Qualitative Methods
Open University of Catalonia
Barcelona, Spain
T office: + 34 93 246 46 90
T mobile: + 34 600 71 64 74
E [log in to unmask]
W
Academia.edu<http://uoc.academia.edu/MarieH%C3%A9l%C3%A8nePar%C3%A9>|NVivo<h
ttp://www.qsrinternational.com/training-and-events_training-and-consultancy_
directory_detail.aspx?view=89>
P És necessari imprimir aquest missatge?
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paula Rowland
Sent: 19 September 2014 15:29
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: the "so what?" question in meta-narrative reviews
Hello all,
Thank you for the opportunity to join this interesting list serve! I have
really enjoyed reading through the various threads. Rather than continue to
lurk from my small corner of the world in Toronto, I've decided to enter the
conversation by asking a question.
I've been working in health care for a while, but am a very recent PhD. My
research is in the intersections of policy and practice within health care
organizations. I pull from theory and methods from organizational studies
and sociology. My current research is on "patient engagement" at the level
of health care organizations.
I am drafting a proposal for a knowledge synthesis. I would like to get my
mind around the various paradigms and research traditions that are
constituting historical and current literature on "patient engagement" for
the purpose of informing organizational policies and programs. As a social
scientist, the tensions and paradoxes involved in the different ways the
"patient" is constructed (as a citizen and a consumer), how implementation
of these programs are considered (sometimes as a transactional exchange of
knowledge, sometimes as a process of relationships, sometimes both), and how
these programs are evaluated (I have seen attempts at quasi-experiemental
designs that would 'black-box' the entire process of engagement and treat
the advisor as a variable that is either present or not) --- it is
abundantly clear to me that exploring these tensions and how they manifest
in organizational programs is a useful exercise.
I would like to try my hand a meta-narrative review to help me unpack some
of these tensions. In looking at the funding body I am apply to (CIHR), I
see that they have only funded 1 meta-narrative review. I imagine that I
need to do a particularly good job of explaining why my questions are
important, why the methodology makes sense, and how important the research
will be.
To that end, I am finding myself in a translation problem. The value of the
research is very clear to me. But --- I wonder if I am doing enough to
explain the potential impact to the reviewers. They are likely to be a mix
of policy makers and traditional systematic reviewers.
Does anyone have any experience and/or readings they could share that would
help me describe the potential impact/importance of a meta-narrative review?
I am looking for some help thinking through the "so what" question so that
my rationale is more clear. I think it might be a bit lost in my jargon and
enthusiasm right now. Other CIHR funded reviews tended to produce decision
making frameworks. I am not sure I can sign up for that kind of output????
If not, how do I explain the potential significance of the research in the
absence of such tangible, concrete tools?
Thanks in advance for any direction. And I am very much looking forward to
ongoing conversation with this group!
Cheers
Paula
|
