Realist evaluation: An immanent critique

Authors: Porter, S.

Journal: Nursing Philosophy

Volume: 16

Issue: 4

Pages: 239-251

DOI: 10.1111/nup.12100

This data was imported from PubMed:

Authors: Porter, S.

Journal: Nurs Philos

Volume: 16

Issue: 4

Pages: 239-251

eISSN: 1466-769X

DOI: 10.1111/nup.12100

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.

This data was imported from Scopus:

Authors: Porter, S.

Journal: Nursing Philosophy

Volume: 16

Issue: 4

Pages: 239-251

eISSN: 1466-769X

ISSN: 1466-7681

DOI: 10.1111/nup.12100

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 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.

This data was imported from Europe PubMed Central:

Authors: Porter, S.

Journal: Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals

Volume: 16

Issue: 4

Pages: 239-251

eISSN: 1466-769X

ISSN: 1466-7681

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.

The data on this page was last updated at 05:24 on October 27, 2020.