The uncritical realism of realist evaluation

Sam Porter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

31 Citations (Scopus)
1334 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article is a response to Ray Pawson’s critique of critical realism, the philosophy of science elaborated by Roy Bhaskar. I argue with Pawson’s interpretation of critical realism’s positions on both natural and social science and his charges concerning its totalizing ontology, its arrogant epistemology and its naive methodology. The differences between critical realism and realist evaluation are not as significant as Pawson contends. The main differences between the two realisms lie in their approaches to the relationship between social structures and human agency, and between facts and values. I argue that evaluation scientists need to clearly distinguish structure and agency. They should also make their values explicit. The uncritical approach of realist evaluation, combined with its underplaying of the importance of agency, leaves it open to implication in the abuses of bureaucratic instrumentalism.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)65-82
Number of pages18
JournalEvaluation
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2015

Keywords

  • critical realism, naturalism, philosophy of science, Ray Pawson, realistic evaluation, Roy Bhaskar

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The uncritical realism of realist evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this