Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Commentary

Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science

Authors: Roman Kislov, Catherine Pope, Graham P. Martin, Paul M. Wilson

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Theories occupy different positions in the scientific circle of enquiry as they vary in scope, abstraction, and complexity. Mid-range theories play a crucial bridging role between raw empirical observations and all-encompassing grand-theoretical schemes. A shift of perspective from ‘theories’ as products to ‘theorising’ as a process can enable empirical researchers to capitalise on the two-way relationships between empirical data and different levels of theory and contribute to the advancement of knowledge. This can be facilitated by embracing theoretically informative (in addition to merely theoretically informed) research, developing mechanism-based explanations, and broadening the repertoire of grand-theoretical orientations.
Literature
1.
Kislov R. Engaging with theory: from theoretically informed to theoretically informative improvement research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):177–9.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. 2019. Published online before print.
3.
Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10(53).
4.
Colquhoun HL, Brehaut JC, Sales A, Ivers N, Grimshaw J, Michie S, Carroll K, Chalifoux M, Eva KW. A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback. Implement Sci. 2013;8(66).
5.
Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci. 2010:5(14).
6.
Birken SA, Powell BJ, Presseau J, Kirk MA, Lorencatto F, Gould NJ, Shea CM, Weiner BJ, Francis JJ, Yu Y, et al. Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(2).
7.
Wensing M, Grol R. Knowledge translation in health: how implementation science could contribute more. BMC Med. 2019;17(88).
8.
Powell BJ, Fernandez ME, Williams NJ, Aarons GA, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, McHugh SM, Weiner BJ: Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health. 2019;7(3).
9.
May CR, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci. 2016;11(141).
10.
Sales AE, Wilson PM, Wensing M, Aarons GA, Armstrong R, Flottorp S, Hutchinson AM, Presseau J, Rogers A, Sevdalis N. Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications: our aims, scope, and reporting expectations. Implement Sci. 2019;14(77).
11.
Weick KE. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(4):516–31.CrossRef
12.
Corley KG, Gioia DA. Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad Manage Rev. 2011;36(1):12–32.CrossRef
13.
Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, Wilkinson J, Harvey G, McCormack B, Baker R, Dopson S, Graham ID, Staniszewska S, Thompson C, et al. Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2016;11(17).
14.
May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535–54.CrossRef
15.
Harvey G, Kitson A. PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci. 2016;11(33).
16.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009, 4(50).
17.
Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
19.
Harvey G, Fitzgerald L, Fielden S, McBride A, Waterman H, Bamford D, Kislov R, Boaden R. The NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy. Implement Sci. 2011;6(96).
20.
Stetler CB, Mittman BS, Francis J. Overview of the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) and QUERI theme articles: QUERI series. Implement Sci. 2008;3(8).
21.
The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implement Sci 2006, 1(4).
22.
Merton RK. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press; 1968.
23.
Llewelyn S. What counts as “theory” in qualitative management and accounting research? Introducing five levels of theorizing. Account Audit Accountab J. 2003;16(4):662–708.CrossRef
24.
Pinder CC, Moore LF. The resurrection of taxonomy to aid the development of middle range theories of organizational behavior. In: Middle range theory and the study of organizations. Springer; 1980. p. 187-211.
25.
Brodie RJ, Saren M, Pels J. Theorizing about the service dominant logic: the bridging role of middle range theory. Marketing Theory. 2011;11(1):75–91.CrossRef
26.
Swedberg R. Before theory comes theorizing or how to make social science more interesting. The British Journal of Sociology. 2016;67(1):5–22.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Bourgeois LJ III. Toward a method of middle-range theorizing. Acad Manage Rev. 1979;4(3):443–7.CrossRef
28.
Weick KE. What theory is not, theorizing is. Adm Sci Q. 1995;40(3):385–90.CrossRef
29.
Liang L, Bernhardsson S, Vernooij RW, Armstrong MJ, Bussières A, Brouwers MC, Gagliardi AR. Use of theory to plan or evaluate guideline implementation among physicians: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(26).
30.
May CR, Cummings A, Girling M, Bracher M, Mair FS, May CM, Murray E, Myall M, Rapley T, Finch T: Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(80).
31.
Van Belle S, van de Pas R, Marchal B. Towards an agenda for implementation science in global health: there is nothing more practical than good (social science) theories. BMJ Global Health. 2017;2(e000181).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Ashworth RE, McDermott AM, Currie G. Theorizing from qualitative research in public administration: plurality through a combination of rigor and richness. J Public Admin Res Theory. 2019:318–33.CrossRef
33.
Jamal F, Fletcher A, Shackleton N, Elbourne D, Viner R, Bonell C. The three stages of building and testing mid-level theories in a realist RCT: a theoretical and methodological case-example. Trials. 2015;16(466).
34.
Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, Lorenc T, Moore L. Realist randomised controlled trials: a new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2299–306.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Tsoukas H: Craving for generality and small-N studies: a Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. In: SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Edited by Buchanan D, Bryman A. London: SAGE Publications; 2009. p. 285-301.
36.
Whetten DA. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(4):490–5.CrossRef
37.
Lewis J, Ritchie J. Generalising from qualitative research. In: Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Edited by Ritchie J, Lewis J. London: Sage Publications; 2003.
38.
Tourish D: Performativity, metatheorising and journal rankings: what are the implications for emerging journals and academic freedom? In: Redesigning Management Education Research: Challenging Proposals from European Scholars. Edited by Dameron S, Durand T. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2011. p. 183-198.
39.
Suddaby R. Editor’s comments: why theory? Acad Manage Rev. 2014;39(4):407–11.CrossRef
40.
Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758–72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Davidoff F. Understanding contexts: how explanatory theories can help. Implement Sci. 2019;14(23).
42.
Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Powell BJ, Lyon AR, Tuzzio L, Jones S, Walsh-Bailey C, Weiner B: From classification to causality: advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Front Public Health. 2018;6(136).
43.
Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43(3-4):267-76.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Hedström P, Ylikoski P. Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Ann Rev Sociol. 2010;36:49–67.CrossRef
45.
46.
Harvey G, McCormack B, Kitson A, Lynch E, Titchen A: Designing and implementing two facilitation interventions within the ‘Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE)’study: a qualitative analysis from an external facilitators’ perspective. Implement Sci. 2018;13(141).
47.
Kislov R, Humphreys J, Harvey G. How do managerial techniques evolve over time? The distortion of “facilitation” in healthcare service improvement. Publ Manag Rev. 2017;19(8):1165–83.CrossRef
48.
49.
Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Cairney P. Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implement Sci. 2013;8(63).
50.
Foy R, Ovretveit J, Shekelle PG, Pronovost PJ, Taylor SL, Dy S, Hempel S, McDonald KM, Rubenstein LV, Wachter RM. The role of theory in research to develop and evaluate the implementation of patient safety practices. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(5):453–9.CrossRef
51.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2002.
52.
Johnson P, Buehring A, Cassell C, Symon G. Evaluating qualitative management research: towards a contingent criteriology. Int J Manag Rev. 2006;8(3):131–56.CrossRef
53.
Cornelissen JP. Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: why the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than suppressed. J Manag Stud. 2017;54(3):368–83.CrossRef
54.
Kislov R, Hyde P, McDonald R. New game, old rules? Mechanisms and consequences of legitimation in boundary spanning activities. Organ Stud. 2017;38(10):1421–44.CrossRef
55.
Sayer A. Method in social science: a realist approach, Revised 2nd edn. Oxon: Routledge; 2010.CrossRef
56.
Porter S, McConnell T, Reid J. The possibility of critical realist randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2017;18(133).
57.
Marchal B, Westhorp G, Wong G, Van Belle S, Greenhalgh T, Kegels G, Pawson R. Realist RCTs of complex interventions–an oxymoron. Soc Sci Med. 2013;94:124–8.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Metadata
Title
Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science
Authors
Roman Kislov
Catherine Pope
Graham P. Martin
Paul M. Wilson
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0957-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Implementation Science 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research

Impact of removal and restriction of me-too medicines in a hospital drug formulary on in- and outpatient drug prescriptions: interrupted time series design with comparison group

Study protocol

The impact of basic vs. enhanced Go NAPSACC on child care centers’ healthy eating and physical activity practices: protocol for a type 3 hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster-randomized trial

Systematic review

Physician-reported barriers to using evidence-based recommendations for low back pain in clinical practice: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Debate

The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions

Research

Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care

Systematic review

Status and potential of bacterial genomics for public health practice: a scoping review