Realist evaluation or realist review (also realist synthesis) is a type of theory-driven evaluation method used in evaluating social programmes.[1] It is based on the epistemological foundations of critical realism. Based on specific theories, realist evaluation provides an alternative lens to empiricist evaluation techniques for the study and understanding of programmes and policies. This technique assumes that knowledge is a social and historical product, thus the social and political context as well as theoretical mechanisms, need consideration in analysis of programme or policy effectiveness.[2][3][4]

Realist evaluation techniques recognise that there are many interwoven variables operative at different levels in society, thus this evaluation method suits complex social interventions, rather than traditional cause-effect, non-contextual methods of analysis. This realist technique acknowledges that intervention programmes and policy changes do not necessarily work for everyone, since people are different and are embedded in different contexts.[5]

Realist evaluation was popularised by the work of Ray Pawson and Nick Tilley in 1997.[6] They described the procedure followed in the implementation of realist evaluation techniques in programme evaluation and emphasise that once hypotheses have been generated and data collected, the outcomes of the programme are explored, focusing on the groups that the programme benefitted and those who did not benefit. Effectiveness of a programme is thus not dependent on the outcomes alone (cause–effect), rather there is a consideration of the theoretical mechanisms that are applied, and the socio-historical context in which the programmes were implemented. Thus, the final explanation of a programme considers context-mechanism-outcome.[7]

All research methods are applicable in realist evaluations:[8]

"... it is quite possible to carry out realistic evaluation using: strategies, quantitative and qualitative; timescales, contemporaneous or historical; viewpoints, cross-sectional or longitudinal; samples, large or small; goals, action-oriented or audit-centred; and so on and so forth."


References

  1. ↑ Marchal, B (2012). "Is realist evaluation keeping its promise?A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systems research". Evaluation. 18 (2): 192–212. doi:10.1177/1356389012442444. S2CID 145299417.
  2. ↑ Secord, P; Secord M (1983). "Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of science". American Psychologist. 38 (4): 399–413. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.38.4.399.
  3. ↑ Dalkin, SM; Jones, D; Lhussier, M; Cunningham, B (2012). "Understanding integrated care pathways in palliative care using realist evaluation:a mixed methods study protocol". BMJ Open. 3 (4): 1–6. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001533. PMC 3391371. PMID 22761292. Open access icon
  4. ↑ Dada, Sara; Dalkin, Sonia; Gilmore, Brynne; Hunter, Rebecca; Mukumbang, Ferdinand C. (2023-03-14). "Applying and reporting relevance, richness and rigour in realist evidence appraisals: Advancing key concepts in realist reviews". Research Synthesis Methods: jrsm.1630. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1630. ISSN 1759-2879. PMID 36872619. S2CID 257363167.
  5. ↑ Hewitt, G; S. Sims; R. Harris (2012). "The realist approach to evaluation research:an introduction". International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation. 19 (5): 205–259. doi:10.12968/ijtr.2012.19.5.250.
  6. ↑ Pawson, Ray (1997). Realistic evaluation. Nick Tilley. London: Sage. ISBN 0-7619-5008-7. OCLC 37255786.
  7. ↑ R Pawson, N. Tilley, "Realistic Evaluation" (Sage), London.
  8. ↑ Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997, p. 85). Realistic Evaluation. SAGE Publications Ltd.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.