Hi Scott
Welcome out into the light! I don't know of any realist/complexity grant proposal templates for research or evaluation (yet), but the Rameses standards for realist review could provide guidance on what needs to be covered and how it needs to be done for a realist review. There are examples of successful protocols for reviews on places like EPPI-Centre. Again, not quite the same thing, but they can still provide guidance.
It would be great to hear from others how they've addressed the particular questions you raise below in their proposals. My approach is to include a brief introduction to RE and its implications for methods. I sometimes format this as a two column table, with a short statement of the philosophical/methodological assumption in the left hand column and the specific implications for the particular design in the right hand column (one assumption per row).
For concurrent evaluations I may then nominate stages at which it will be appropriate to develop / revise the design and instruments. For example, if the first stage in a project is theory building, then only the instruments/tools for the theory building stage need be developed at the beginning. If the next six months (or year) of a project is the first iteration of theory testing, then instruments for that phase are selected or developed based on the outcomes of the first stage - and may be revised in the light of findings from that stage, ready for the next one.
This isn't dissimilar to the approach taken in Developmental Evaluation btw - although the underlying paradigms are not necessarily the same.
I also usually include some qualitative work because it's the easiest way to identify unanticipated outcomes/emergent properties.
One thing to ponder (I think) is the extent to which 'indicators which can be measured' are appropriate, and for what (context, mechanism, outcome; emergent properties of systems, dynamic processes...). It raises the question of the difference between mediators/moderators and context/mechanism - all useful stuff for new academics to come to grips with.
Cheers
Gill
-----Original Message-----
From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of J Scott Parrott
Sent: Saturday, 24 January 2015 3:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Grant proposal criteria that incorporate realist/complexity criteria (for Americans)
Hello Rameses group:
I'm a long time lurker at a northeastern US university. I've got what I think is a fairly concrete problem that I could use some help with.
We are evaluating grant applications for internal university grants, and having the faculty submit proposals following NIH guidelines.
These are young faculty and so do not have a ton of experience with grant writing. As a member of our school's committee on research, I'm providing support (templates, examples, etc.) to the applicants. However, I have not been able to find any good examples of grants (or grant proposal guidelines) that incorporate realist or complexity theoretic principles into the research evaluation plan (most all the examples are either for controlled trials or large epi studies).
We have a subset of applicants that (a) are interested in more complex program or initiative evaluation projects, and (b) are not conversant (except the work I have shared with them...much coming from this listserve) with realist or complexity theoretic concepts (e.g., emergence or recursivity). (Remember, these are both new researchers and American healthcare researchers.) Thus, they are at a bit of a loss as to how to formulate a research plan that can coherently (and briefly) incorporate such things as change of theoretic framework, criteria for identifying when sui generis phenomena have emerged (hence, what new variables and relationships may need to be measured that were not measured before), etc.
And, since the templates we have available "fit" the classic highly controlled format, this (unintendedly and surreptitiously) puts some of the faculty at a distinct advantage. What I'd like to do is even the playing field a bit to erase (or at least decrease) the proposal evaluation disadvantage of our colleagues who (intuitively) appear to have a predisposition toward more realist or complexity frames.
So, if anyone knows of any grant proposal "templates" (or even successful NIH grant applications) that could help our evaluation committee evaluate these types of proposals, we would greatly appreciate it.
Scott
|