Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Debate

What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation

Authors: Sonia Michelle Dalkin, Joanne Greenhalgh, Diana Jones, Bill Cunningham, Monique Lhussier

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The idea that underlying, generative mechanisms give rise to causal regularities has become a guiding principle across many social and natural science disciplines. A specific form of this enquiry, realist evaluation is gaining momentum in the evaluation of complex social interventions. It focuses on ‘what works, how, in which conditions and for whom’ using context, mechanism and outcome configurations as opposed to asking whether an intervention ‘works’. Realist evaluation can be difficult to codify and requires considerable researcher reflection and creativity. As such there is often confusion when operationalising the method in practice. This article aims to clarify and further develop the concept of mechanism in realist evaluation and in doing so aid the learning of those operationalising the methodology.

Discussion

Using a social science illustration, we argue that disaggregating the concept of mechanism into its constituent parts helps to understand the difference between the resources offered by the intervention and the ways in which this changes the reasoning of participants. This in turn helps to distinguish between a context and mechanism. The notion of mechanisms ‘firing’ in social science research is explored, with discussions surrounding how this may stifle researchers’ realist thinking. We underline the importance of conceptualising mechanisms as operating on a continuum, rather than as an ‘on/off’ switch.

Summary

The discussions in this article will hopefully progress and operationalise realist methods. This development is likely to occur due to the infancy of the methodology and its recent increased profile and use in social science research. The arguments we present have been tested and are explained throughout the article using a social science illustration, evidencing their usability and value.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: SAGE; 1997. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: SAGE; 1997.
2.
go back to reference Pawson R. A measure for measures: a manifesto for empirical sociology. London: Routledge; 1989.CrossRef Pawson R. A measure for measures: a manifesto for empirical sociology. London: Routledge; 1989.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hesse M. The structure of scientific inference. Oakland, CA: University of California Press; 1974. Hesse M. The structure of scientific inference. Oakland, CA: University of California Press; 1974.
4.
go back to reference Harré R. The philosophy of science: an introductory survey. London: Oxford University Press; 1972. Harré R. The philosophy of science: an introductory survey. London: Oxford University Press; 1972.
5.
go back to reference Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. London: SAGE; 2013.CrossRef Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. London: SAGE; 2013.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Sayer A. Method in social science: a realist approach. London: Hutchinson; 1984.CrossRef Sayer A. Method in social science: a realist approach. London: Hutchinson; 1984.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. 2nd ed. Brighton: Harvester Press; 1978. Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. 2nd ed. Brighton: Harvester Press; 1978.
9.
go back to reference Boudon R. Social mechanisms without black boxes. In: Hedström P, Swedberg R, editors. Social mechanisms: an analytical approach to social theory. UK: Cambridge University Press Cambridge; 1998. Boudon R. Social mechanisms without black boxes. In: Hedström P, Swedberg R, editors. Social mechanisms: an analytical approach to social theory. UK: Cambridge University Press Cambridge; 1998.
10.
go back to reference Stinchcombe A. The conditions of fruitfulness of theorizing about mechanisms in social science. Philos Soc Sci. 1991;21(3):367–88.CrossRef Stinchcombe A. The conditions of fruitfulness of theorizing about mechanisms in social science. Philos Soc Sci. 1991;21(3):367–88.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bhaskar R. The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: Harvester Press; 1979. Bhaskar R. The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton: Harvester Press; 1979.
12.
go back to reference Archer M. Realist social theory: the morphogenic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.CrossRef Archer M. Realist social theory: the morphogenic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chen H, Rossi P. The theory-driven approach to validity. Eval Program Plann. 1987;10:95–103.CrossRef Chen H, Rossi P. The theory-driven approach to validity. Eval Program Plann. 1987;10:95–103.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Astbury B, Leeuw F. Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. Am J Eval. 2010;31(3):363–81.CrossRef Astbury B, Leeuw F. Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. Am J Eval. 2010;31(3):363–81.CrossRef
15.
16.
go back to reference Weiss C. Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New directions for evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997. Weiss C. Theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New directions for evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997.
17.
go back to reference Vassilev I, Rogers A, Kennedy A, Koetsenruijter J. The influence of social networks on self-management support: a metasynthesis. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(719):1–12. Vassilev I, Rogers A, Kennedy A, Koetsenruijter J. The influence of social networks on self-management support: a metasynthesis. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(719):1–12.
18.
go back to reference Hedstom P, Swedberg R. Social mechanisms: an analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRef Hedstom P, Swedberg R. Social mechanisms: an analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Thoits P. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J Health Soc Behav. 2011;52(2):145–61.CrossRefPubMed Thoits P. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J Health Soc Behav. 2011;52(2):145–61.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Humphrey C, Hughes J, Macfarlane F, Butler C, Pawson R. How do you modernize a health service? A realist evaluation of whole-scale transformation in London. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):391–416.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Greenhalgh T, Humphrey C, Hughes J, Macfarlane F, Butler C, Pawson R. How do you modernize a health service? A realist evaluation of whole-scale transformation in London. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):391–416.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference George A, Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2004. George A, Bennett A. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2004.
22.
go back to reference Henry G, Julnes G, Mark M. Realist evaluation: an emerging theory in support of practice. New directions for program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1998. Henry G, Julnes G, Mark M. Realist evaluation: an emerging theory in support of practice. New directions for program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1998.
23.
go back to reference Jagosh J, Pluye P, Wong G, Cargo M, Salsberg J, Bush PL, et al. Critical reflections on realist review: insights from customizing the methodology to the needs of participatory research assessment. Res Synth Methods. 2013;5(2):131–41.CrossRefPubMed Jagosh J, Pluye P, Wong G, Cargo M, Salsberg J, Bush PL, et al. Critical reflections on realist review: insights from customizing the methodology to the needs of participatory research assessment. Res Synth Methods. 2013;5(2):131–41.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Salter K, Kothari A. Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: a state-of-the-art review. Implement Sci. 2014;9(115):1–14. Salter K, Kothari A. Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: a state-of-the-art review. Implement Sci. 2014;9(115):1–14.
25.
go back to reference Pawson R, Manzano-Santaella A. A realist diagnostic workshop. Evaluation. 2012;18:176–91.CrossRef Pawson R, Manzano-Santaella A. A realist diagnostic workshop. Evaluation. 2012;18:176–91.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Marchal B, van Belle S, van Olmen J, Hoerée T, Kegels G. Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A literature review of methodological practice in health systems research. Evaluation. 2012;18(192):192–212.CrossRef Marchal B, van Belle S, van Olmen J, Hoerée T, Kegels G. Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A literature review of methodological practice in health systems research. Evaluation. 2012;18(192):192–212.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Murtagh F, Preston M, Higginson I. Patterns of dying: palliative care for non-malignant disease. Clin Med. 2004;4:39–44.CrossRef Murtagh F, Preston M, Higginson I. Patterns of dying: palliative care for non-malignant disease. Clin Med. 2004;4:39–44.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Murray S, Kendall M, Boyd K, Sheikh A. Illness trajectories and palliative care. Br Med J. 2005;330:1007–11.CrossRef Murray S, Kendall M, Boyd K, Sheikh A. Illness trajectories and palliative care. Br Med J. 2005;330:1007–11.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Jagosh J, Macaulay A, Pluye P, Salsburg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jagosh J, Macaulay A, Pluye P, Salsburg J, Bush PL, Henderson J, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Wilson V, McCormack B. Critical realism as emancipatory action: the case for realistic evaluation in practice development. Nurs Philos. 2006;7(1):45–57.CrossRefPubMed Wilson V, McCormack B. Critical realism as emancipatory action: the case for realistic evaluation in practice development. Nurs Philos. 2006;7(1):45–57.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11(21):1–14. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11(21):1–14.
33.
go back to reference Pawson R. Digging for nuggets: how ‘bad’ research can yield ‘good’ evidence. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006;9(2):127–42.CrossRef Pawson R. Digging for nuggets: how ‘bad’ research can yield ‘good’ evidence. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006;9(2):127–42.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation
Authors
Sonia Michelle Dalkin
Joanne Greenhalgh
Diana Jones
Bill Cunningham
Monique Lhussier
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0237-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue