Realist evaluation: an immanent critique

Sam Porter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper critically analyses realist evaluation, focussing on its primary analytical concepts: mechanisms, contexts, and outcomes. Noting that nursing investigators have had difficulty in operationalizing the concepts of mechanism and context, it is argued that their confusion is at least partially the result of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the realist evaluation model. Problematic issues include the adoption of empiricist and idealist positions, oscillation between determinism and voluntarism, subsumption of agency under structure, and categorical confusion between context and mechanism. In relation to outcomes, it is argued that realist evaluation's adoption of the fact/value distinction prevents it from taking into account the concerns of those affected by interventions. The aim of the paper is to use these immanent critiques of realist evaluation to construct an internally consistent realist approach to evaluation that is more amenable to being operationalized by nursing researchers.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)239-251
Number of pages13
JournalNursing Philosophy
Volume16
Issue number4
Early online date26 Aug 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2015

Fingerprint

evaluation
nursing
Nursing
voluntarism
Research Personnel
determinism
Values

Keywords

  • research methodology; critical realism; nursing evaluation; social mechanism; Pawson

Cite this

Porter, Sam. / Realist evaluation: an immanent critique. In: Nursing Philosophy. 2015 ; Vol. 16, No. 4. pp. 239-251.
@article{9ea7f2d8f4a445ad8637ed6bcb728f7e,
title = "Realist evaluation: an immanent critique",
abstract = "This paper critically analyses realist evaluation, focussing on its primary analytical concepts: mechanisms, contexts, and outcomes. Noting that nursing investigators have had difficulty in operationalizing the concepts of mechanism and context, it is argued that their confusion is at least partially the result of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the realist evaluation model. Problematic issues include the adoption of empiricist and idealist positions, oscillation between determinism and voluntarism, subsumption of agency under structure, and categorical confusion between context and mechanism. In relation to outcomes, it is argued that realist evaluation's adoption of the fact/value distinction prevents it from taking into account the concerns of those affected by interventions. The aim of the paper is to use these immanent critiques of realist evaluation to construct an internally consistent realist approach to evaluation that is more amenable to being operationalized by nursing researchers.",
keywords = "research methodology; critical realism; nursing evaluation; social mechanism; Pawson",
author = "Sam Porter",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/nup.12100",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "239--251",
journal = "Nursing Philosophy",
issn = "1466-7681",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Realist evaluation: an immanent critique. / Porter, Sam.

In: Nursing Philosophy, Vol. 16, No. 4, 10.2015, p. 239-251.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Realist evaluation: an immanent critique

AU - Porter, Sam

PY - 2015/10

Y1 - 2015/10

N2 - This paper critically analyses realist evaluation, focussing on its primary analytical concepts: mechanisms, contexts, and outcomes. Noting that nursing investigators have had difficulty in operationalizing the concepts of mechanism and context, it is argued that their confusion is at least partially the result of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the realist evaluation model. Problematic issues include the adoption of empiricist and idealist positions, oscillation between determinism and voluntarism, subsumption of agency under structure, and categorical confusion between context and mechanism. In relation to outcomes, it is argued that realist evaluation's adoption of the fact/value distinction prevents it from taking into account the concerns of those affected by interventions. The aim of the paper is to use these immanent critiques of realist evaluation to construct an internally consistent realist approach to evaluation that is more amenable to being operationalized by nursing researchers.

AB - This paper critically analyses realist evaluation, focussing on its primary analytical concepts: mechanisms, contexts, and outcomes. Noting that nursing investigators have had difficulty in operationalizing the concepts of mechanism and context, it is argued that their confusion is at least partially the result of ambiguities, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the realist evaluation model. Problematic issues include the adoption of empiricist and idealist positions, oscillation between determinism and voluntarism, subsumption of agency under structure, and categorical confusion between context and mechanism. In relation to outcomes, it is argued that realist evaluation's adoption of the fact/value distinction prevents it from taking into account the concerns of those affected by interventions. The aim of the paper is to use these immanent critiques of realist evaluation to construct an internally consistent realist approach to evaluation that is more amenable to being operationalized by nursing researchers.

KW - research methodology; critical realism; nursing evaluation; social mechanism; Pawson

U2 - 10.1111/nup.12100

DO - 10.1111/nup.12100

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 239

EP - 251

JO - Nursing Philosophy

JF - Nursing Philosophy

SN - 1466-7681

IS - 4

ER -