Hi All
In response to Justin's question and following on from Gill.
My understanding is that often the purpose of a project firmly within a constructivism paradigm is to surface and possibly interpret or give meaning to the multiple realities of the research participants. This can be an end in and of itself.
Within a realist paradigm, one might use similar techniques (interviews, observations etc) but the purpose is to develop a greater understanding of the underlying causal forces which might give rise to the viewpoints. I.e. multiple perspectives but of, ultimately, the same thing. So the orientation of the project is different, and accordingly so might the analysis techniques one might employ.
Triangulation, for example, is a key tool to support this. (It is also a tool which can be used in constructivism, which is where I think there is a great deal of overlap with a realist ontology. It is questionable, in my opinion, if someone was claiming a strong constructivist ontology and using triangulation in their analysis).
Theory is essential, because, in the main, we can't see 'mechanisms' so we need theories (or put simply our ideas about how the world works) to connect the bits we can see up together. One other difference in realism might be the use of abstraction which, by which I mean thinking about the ideas about how the world works unconnected to the context. Transferring these ideas to other contexts to test whether they still apply may help us gain a greater understanding of how, when and why these ideas apply and strengthen our theories about the underlying nature of reality. This is what I understood from Pawson's Realist Manifesto. I think it is irrelevant to constructivism.
In light of this, Ebenezer, I have a few questions arising from your protocol, which as Justin says, reads very well. The staged diagram in particular is very clear.
How do you plan to elicit the initial theories? The documents you uncover in the systematic review (and likely many that don't fit the 'validity' criteria) will probably give you lots of ideas
Have you considered any abstract theories which would support or frame your initial theory building? Using a purely data driven approach to this can become overwhelming. So think about 'what is a CT an example of?' at an abstracted level (Incentives? 'relief aid'? etc) and then find abstract substantiated theories that might apply before you get embroiled in the literature or interviews which relate to your specific cases.
How will you sample the case studies? I note you are thinking of maximum variation, but against what? I think in realist projects the sampling should be theory driven - i.e. you select on the basis of what will test your theories effectively. This might coincide with outcomes i.e. high performers versus low performers, but it might not. See Emmel, Nick. Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: A realist approach. Sage, 2013.
If the theories (which will develop and refine over the course of the project) are the 'spine' of the project, you might want to reconsider the thematic analysis, which is in my understanding content driven. I think Sonia Dalkin has written a blog about using qualitative software and a deductive but flexible coding framework built around her initial theories which might be a way forward.
I hope these are helpful questions and wish you luck with the very interesting project.
Katie Shearn
PhD Researcher
Health and Wellbeing Research Institute -
Postgraduate Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University
Chestnut Court
Collegiate Crescent
Sheffield
S10 2BP
