首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Qualitative Methods >What’s in a Realist Configuration? Deciding Which Causal Configurations to Use, How, and Why
【24h】

What’s in a Realist Configuration? Deciding Which Causal Configurations to Use, How, and Why

机译:什么是现实主义配置? 决定使用哪种因果配置,如何以及原因

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Realist studies represent an increasingly popular approach for exploring complex interventions’ successes and failures. The theory-driven approach seeks to explain “what works, how, why, in which contexts, for whom, and to what extent” using context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations. When the approach was first developed, CMO configurations were the method for expressing causal explanations. Increasingly, realist studies have been conducted using different variations of the heuristic such as strategy–context–mechanism–outcome (SCMO) configurations or intervention–context–actor–mechanism– outcome (ICAMO) configurations. Researchers have highlighted a lack of methodological guidance regarding which additional explanatory factors can be included in configurations (e.g., strategies, interventions, actors). This article aims to clarify and further develop the concept of configurations by discussing how explanatory factors could be robustly added to the original CMO configuration as put forward by Pawson and Tilley. Comparing the use of different types of configurations: We draw on two of our own studies, one which formulated CMO configurations and one which formulated SCMO configurations, and on an evidence scan of realist studies. We explored the effects these different configurations had on studies’ findings and highlight why researchers chose CMOs or SCMOs. Finally, we provide recommendations regarding the use of configurations. These are as follows: Using additional explanatory factors is possible but consider the research scope to select the configuration appropriate for the study; Be transparent about the choice in configuration and include examples of configurations; Further studies about the use of additional explanatory factors are needed to better understand the effects on each step in the realist evaluation cycle; and New ways of disseminating realist findings are needed to balance transparency regarding the use of configurations. Conclusions: Adding explanatory factors is possible and can be insightful depending on the study’s scope and aims; however, any configuration type must adhere to the rule of generative causation.
机译:背景:现实主义研究代表了探索复杂的干预措施的成功和失败的越来越流行的方法。理论驱动的方法寻求解释“什么有效,如何,为什么,为什么使用上下文 - 机制 - 结果(CMO)配置。首先开发该方法时,CMO配置是表达因果解释的方法。越来越多地,使用诸如战略 - 背景机制 - 结果(SCMO)配置或干预 - 上下文 - 演员机制(ICAMO)配置的启发式典的不同变体进行了现实主义研究。研究人员强调了缺乏关于哪些额外的解释因素可以包含在配置中的方法论指导(例如,策略,干预措施,演员)。本文旨在通过讨论Pawson和Tilley向前提出的原始CMO配置,阐明并进一步开发配置的概念。比较不同类型的配置的使用:我们借鉴了我们自己的两个研究,其中构成了CMO配置的两个,以及其中制定了SCMO配置的一个,以及对现实研究的证据扫描。我们探讨了这些不同配置对研究的结果的影响,并突出了研究人员选择CMOS或SCMO的原因。最后,我们为使用配置提供了建议。这些如下:使用其他解释性因素是可能的,但考虑研究范围,以选择适合于研究的配置;对配置中的选择是透明的,包括配置的示例;需要进一步研究使用额外的解释因素,以更好地了解现实评估周期中的每一步的影响;需要传播现实发现的新方法来平衡关于使用配置的透明度。结论:添加解释性因素是可能的,可以根据研究的范围和目标是洞察力;但是,任何配置类型必须遵守生成原因规则。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号