Hi Kev

This is what you should say:

"Epistemology can never be complete. It is haunted by the ‘regress problem’. Simply put, the dilemma is that any claim to establish privileged knowledge requires justification.  However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any knowledge platform can be endlessly questioned. Whimsically, philosophers of science are thus likened to precocious children – forever asking the question ‘why?’

Epistemology can only provide certain principles to guide empirical research. They do not furnish a rule book. They cannot speak about every contingency you will encounter in the conduct of inquiry. Indeed the best epistemology slowly adapts and learns from the practical accomplishments of those working in its name.

So dear examiner, my own epistemological stance is not fully hardened. I have drawn on some principles of realism in the understanding that it is a broad tradition. In particular I am drawn to (X, Y, Zs accounts - complete for yourself) and have followed them in this respect (complete for yourself). But realism is a broad church, itself riven with rival, overlapping accounts"

Basically it is bollocks to imagine that a PhD student picks an epistemology off the shelf and follows it. If you have now read the Science of Evaluation you'll see I started with Realist Bhaskar but then drifted off to Realist Campbell, making several important detours along the way. Bhaskar and Campbell have themselves made notable detours.

Best

RAY


________________________________________
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Trish Greenhalgh [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 1:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A plea for some philosophical advice

Kev

Have you passed your viva now? Is this question for your own intellectual
development (and the future PhD) or are you doing Œcorrections¹?

I would say that it¹s easy to get tied in knots because different people
mean different things by Œrealism¹ and Œcritical realism¹. My advice would
be get your supervisor to fix the examiners and find out if they¹ve got
strong (published) views on this theme. Also, put in a section setting out
the various different takes on these terms, and then say ŒIn this thesis I
will align with X¹s definition of ‹ which is [quote]¹.  You have then set
the boundaries of the thesis. Anything beyond X¹s definition is Œ beyond
the scope of the thesis¹. All they can ask you is Œwhy did you use X¹s
definition not Y¹s definition?¹ to which the reply might be Œboth are
recognised approaches but I needed my work to be consistent and X¹s fitted
the data better¹ or something. All questions about Y are out of scope.

Beyond the MPhil/PhD, my view is that there is no absolute truth on these
things, only different people¹s interpretations. I would pick a scholar
whose realism chimes with your realism, and couch your work in that genre.
But beware of bear traps from schools that do not share your assumptions.

If this seems too relativist for some, it¹s probably my constructivist
leanings!


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]

@trishgreenhalgh











On 16/11/2014 12:45, "Kev Harris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Dear RAMESES members ,
>
>It was great to meet many of you in Liverpool at what was a great
>conference.
>
>The reason for this post centres upon a philosophical muddle I am
>currently in trying to make sense and gain clarity around the
>philosophical groundings of my PhD. Apologies if this comes across as a
>stupid message !
>
>In my MPHil viva just over a month ago I was asked to clarify the
>philosophical groundings of my PhD which involves training practitioners
>to elicit RE in their own projects and then me testing my training
>framework through an RE methodology. Immediately I moved towards realism
>or more specifically critical realism where I covered that there is a
>reality independent of our knowledge of it yet there are hidden
>mechanisms / generative causality etc etc. For me, as I am training
>practitioners to carry out RE on their own social change interventions ,
>and thus using RE myself to test my framework with the practitioners, I
>highlighted that my take on things was to explore how individuals (for
>whom) impact on and are impacted by external structures (contexts) and
>then reason against resources provided (mechanisms) which lead to certain
>behaviours and outcomes. I felt I had done a decent job in explaining
>that individuals have the capacity to change only through navigating
>their own internal dispositions and within the structural dynamics
>external to them (eg structure and agency).
>
>Then I was then asked to explain how my position (critical realist) was
>different to realist and I started to feel hot and uneasy! I basically
>did not feel comfortable with the question.
>
>Since then (and at the conference) I have been trying to establish the
>difference between realism and critical realism. I still cannot get to a
>position where I can fully distinguish between the two. In some text
>books realism is an ontological position and then an epistemological
>position.
>
>I have just started reading Ray's new book which actually states in the
>opening pages the fact that he is not critical realist per se, and that
>in the following chapter 'the seven pillars' applies different takes
>(from my interpretation) of realist thinkers / greats. Does that mean
>Pawson and Tilley's take on realistic evaluation draws upon a variety of
>different realist positions that drives their approach?
>
>Can anyone help? Am I not the only one new to this field having the same
>troubles? I think the key question is : is there anyone who could advise
>how to answer these questions in a VIVA and be able to firmly state what
>the philosophical foundations (ontological and epistemological) of their
>PhD are which then leads to the methodology of RE?
>
>Apologies again if this comes across as an 'idiots' email but that's
>certainly how I feel right now 'philosophically'!
>
>
>
>Kind Regards
>
>Kevin Harris
>Senior Fellow : Higher Education Academy
>Senior Lecturer Sport Development and Sport Policy
>Course Leader, BA Hons Sport Coaching and Development
>Southampton Solent University
>East Park Terrace
>02380 319520
>
>Follow us on Twitter: @SSUSpCoachDev
>Check out our blog: www.solentsportsdegrees.blogspot.co.uk
>Follow our You Tube channel: ssusportdev2012