 |
 |
PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask] from the 'To:' section of your email. Hi Gareth Before he does so I'd put in a plug for Nick Emmel et al's Doing Realist Research. There are several chapters in there that address the permanently evolving relationship between Cs, Ms and Os. These chime nicely with some ideas in Jay's paper. HOWEVER for PhD studies you don't need to follow every nuance of the this debate. The main point for you is that CMO thinking should generate some testable hypotheses. In this respect you might have a look at Pawson and Manzano's paper 'Realist Diagnostic Workshop'. There is some stern advice in there that CMO tables should be 'configurations not catalogues'. Be warned! Good luck and best wishes RAY ________________________________ From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jay Shaw <[log in to unmask]> Sent: 14 January 2019 02:01:10 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Context versus mechanism PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> from the 'To:' section of your email. Hello Gareth (and Everyone!), It's great to see that you are engaging explicitly with this question. Pardon the self-promotion, but attached is a paper written by a large international research team of which I am a part that was just published last week, and provides a discussion of sorting out the differences between mechanisms and contexts! It seems to be engaging with exactly the same challenge you've articulated at this stage of your analysis. Hopefully it is helpful! And feel free to reach out directly if you have questions about the paper. Very best, Jay Jay Shaw, PT, PhD Scientist Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care Women's College Research Institute Women's College Hospital On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 1:06 PM Jagosh, Justin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> from the 'To:' section of your email. Dear Gareth, I think you have a really nice start to your programme theorizing and you have organized your C’s and M’s oriented a way that makes sense generally. Now the task is to push this further – to make the connections more explicit and to drill deeper keeping in mind the idea of ‘ontological depth’ So for example, with your first intervention component: “PD about reading strategies” what, specifically, are the resource that are produced by this intervention? How to people respond to those resources? Much of this is already there – ‘hear it more than once’ is the resource of repetition. But what does repetition offer? And in terms of response, do people respond with a feeling of confidence in their understanding due to repetition? And if some people do not respond with a feeling of confidence in their understanding, despite hearing it more than once, is there something about their context that is impeding this mechanism? So like that the mechanism can be disaggregated into the resources the intervention offers and how people respond to those resources, given contextual factors. You also want to move in the direction of developing ‘tighter’ associations between your contexts and mechanisms. I’ve discussed this point in a 2017 webinar on the context-mechanism interaction. You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5CgJJwzayI It’s a very good start. Best of luck, Justin Justin Jagosh, Ph.D Director, Centre for Advancement in Realist Evaluation and Synthesis (CARES) www.realistmethodology-cares.org<http://www.realistmethodology-cares.org/> & Honorary Research Associate Institute for Psychology, Health and Society University of Liverpool, UK www.liv.ac.uk/cares<http://www.liv.ac.uk/cares> From: Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Medd, Gareth Sent: January 12, 2019 9:29 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Context versus mechanism PLEASE NOTE: When you click 'Reply' to any message it will be sent to all RAMESES List members. If you only want to reply to the sender please remove [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> from the 'To:' section of your email. Hi I am in the early stages of a doctorate evaluating professional development programmes. I have made these theoretical CMO configurations. I wonder if anyone in this list might give me some feedback about whether my mechanisms are contexts or whether my contexts are mechanisms. The table is below. Thank you Gareth OUTLINE OF CMO CONFIGURATIONS TO BE EVALUATED Intervention Context Mechanism Outcome PD about reading strategies Open positive attitude to new learning and ideas. Sufficient professional skill to take on new learning. Support by school/leaders. Space/permission/ expectation to practise new approaches. Hear it more than once. See it in action. Try it in the classroom. Believe things could be better. Notices impact on children. Processes the new learning. Explain strategies that are required for reading comprehension. Planning changes to incorporate these strategies. Lessons and questioning reflect this. PD about instruction Willingness to change view of ‘teaching’ or existing view of active teaching. Leadership feedback about lesson structure. Hear it more than once. See it in action. Try it in the classroom. Believe things could be better. Notices impact on children. Processes the new learning. Uses this approach in reading and other lessons. Planning shows different lesson structure. Referred to in staff discussion of practice. Provision of a range of PD opportunities Attends training. School leadership commitment. Coherence of messages between PD deliverers. School ‘learning culture’. Enthusiasm about training (overcomes tiredness). Discuss and visualise during training. Connects messages between opportunities. Staff hold wider view of professional development and appreciate its value in their role. Extended ‘learning culture’ in school. PD ‘sticks’ more than previous PD. PD is more connected to classroom life. Lesson study Team open to criticality but supportive. Leader promotes dialogue and further action. Sufficient time and prioritisation. Plan is based on PD learning. Leader acts as role model. Focus on children and learning not reputation or image. Trust in other members of the team. Desire to improve. Open to give it a go. Improved team professional dialogue. Teams independently try something new. Teams plan their own next step. Teams share their learning from the lesson study. Coherent leadership of reading programme Consistency of expectation from middle leadership. Middle leadership confidence in implementing PD. Clear outline of reading improvement strategy. Confidence of middle leaders. Year team self- analysis. Middle leaders and teams visualise how things can be different. Strategic approach and insistence of middle leaders. Year groups follow approaches. Planning reflects PD. Timetable and organisation prioritise reading purposes. Precise decision made about ensuring reading improvement strategy is followed. UCL [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join To UNSUBSCRIBE please see: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/subscribers/faq.html#join