Using the realist interview approach to maintain theoretical awareness in realist studies

Abstract

Realist evaluation submits that theories and models of how, why, for whom and under what circumstances programs work could be formulated by conceptualizing the relational links between the context within which programs are implemented, the generative mechanisms the programs trigger, and the outcomes of interest. Qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis allow for the description of the relevant context, the generative mechanisms, and the emergent outcomes of programs and provide explanatory power to link these elements. The ‘realist interviewing technique’, whereby interviewees comment on a suggested ‘program theory’ to provide refinement, is proposed as a distinctive approach for conducting interviews in a realist-informed inquiry. However, the application of this interviewing strategy within the realist evaluation studies is underutilized. In this study, we demonstrate how the realist interview technique reinforces and maintains theoretical awareness and contributes to trustworthiness through three theory-building phases: theory gleaning, theory refining, and theory consolidation.

Combining the theory of change and realist evaluation approaches to elicit an initial program theory of the MomConnect program in South Africa

“…RE focuses on providing a 'causation-based explanation'depiction of cause-effect relationships among elements [24] to provide explanations of program effectiveness [32]. RE is a theory-driven approach to evaluation informed by principles of critical realismsocial structures and agents having underlying causal powers that interact to cause an observed behavior [33]. RE aims to unearth theories to explain how and why the intervention is supposed to trigger change [34].…”

“…Of importance, nevertheless, is the notion that the Intervention (I) must be accepted by the users, Actors (A), for it to be successful. Therefore, we considered adding elements of the Actors (A) and intervention (I) modalities to the original CMOs heuristic tool and adopted the interventioncontext-actor-mechanism-outcomes (ICAMO) configuration [33].…”

Leaving No Man Behind: How Differentiated Service Delivery Models Increase Men’s Engagement in HIV Care

“…53 Through the process of retroduction, each mechanism (M) or bundle of mechanisms (M) was linked to the observation (O) of interest (M-O links). 54 Retroduction was also applied to identify the necessary contextual (C) conditions modifying the causal mechanism to take effect. 53 Because retroduction offers the possibility for multiple potential explanations, 36 we had to adjudicate between rival or competing C-M-O links.…”

The need for retroductive thinking in implementation sciences

“…First, we selected three contrastive cases. (1) Typical case -the most representative of the phenomenon being explored; (2) Deviant case -most likely case to be negative with regard to the phenomenon under consideration and; (3) Crucial case -a case that is critical in understanding the phenomenon [28]. Based on the retention in care rates from monitoring reports of the adherence club program from 2014 to 2017, we classified our cases accordingly.…”

“…Abductive reasoning is underpinned by the notion that data are never complete or perfect, therefore, inferences are drawn in situations of incomplete or contested data. Abductive reasoning is thus characterized by a lack of completeness in the evidence that the data provides [28]. Considering the role of abductive reasoning, the goal of the researcher is to collect as much relevant information as possible so that the focus of retroduction is on creating 8 meaningful understanding based on the available data.…”