Cargando…

Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher

Realist evaluation, a methodology for exploring generative causation within complex health interventions to understand ‘how, why and for whom’ programmes work, is experiencing a surge of interest. Trends indicate that the proliferation in the use of this methodology also applies to research in low-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gilmore, Brynne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6830045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31749993
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001638
_version_ 1783465699564322816
author Gilmore, Brynne
author_facet Gilmore, Brynne
author_sort Gilmore, Brynne
collection PubMed
description Realist evaluation, a methodology for exploring generative causation within complex health interventions to understand ‘how, why and for whom’ programmes work, is experiencing a surge of interest. Trends indicate that the proliferation in the use of this methodology also applies to research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The value of using realist evaluation for project evaluation is also being noticed by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other programme implementers within such contexts. Yet, there is limited exploration of the use of realist evaluations in LMICs, especially their use by foreign researchers. This paper draws on the author’s experience of conducting two realist evaluations across three different sub-Saharan African settings: Mundemu, Tanzania; Kabale, Uganda and Marsabit, Kenya. The realist evaluations were used as an operations research methodology to study two NGO community health programmes. This paper highlights four main challenges experienced by the author throughout the methodological process: (1) power imbalances prevalent during realist interviews, (2) working through translation and what this means for identfying Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations, (3) limited contextual familiarity and being an ‘engaged researcher’ and (4) the use or dependence on ‘WEIRD’ theories (i.e. theories based on the study of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic people) within testing and refinement. Realist evaluation’s enticing and straightforward slogan of finding ‘what works, for whom and why’ is in contrast to the complexity of the methodology used to generate these results (and often to the results themselves). Striking a balance between theory and pragmatism, while adhering to realist ontological underpinnings of generative causation and retroduction, is no easy task. This paper concludes by providing concrete recommendations for those who want to undertake a realist evaluation, with particular attention to cross-cultural settings, in light of the aforementioned challenges. In doing so, it aims to foster improved methodological rigour and help those engaging in this research methodology to work towards more appropriate and contextually relevant findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6830045
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68300452019-11-20 Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher Gilmore, Brynne BMJ Glob Health Practice Realist evaluation, a methodology for exploring generative causation within complex health interventions to understand ‘how, why and for whom’ programmes work, is experiencing a surge of interest. Trends indicate that the proliferation in the use of this methodology also applies to research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The value of using realist evaluation for project evaluation is also being noticed by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other programme implementers within such contexts. Yet, there is limited exploration of the use of realist evaluations in LMICs, especially their use by foreign researchers. This paper draws on the author’s experience of conducting two realist evaluations across three different sub-Saharan African settings: Mundemu, Tanzania; Kabale, Uganda and Marsabit, Kenya. The realist evaluations were used as an operations research methodology to study two NGO community health programmes. This paper highlights four main challenges experienced by the author throughout the methodological process: (1) power imbalances prevalent during realist interviews, (2) working through translation and what this means for identfying Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations, (3) limited contextual familiarity and being an ‘engaged researcher’ and (4) the use or dependence on ‘WEIRD’ theories (i.e. theories based on the study of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic people) within testing and refinement. Realist evaluation’s enticing and straightforward slogan of finding ‘what works, for whom and why’ is in contrast to the complexity of the methodology used to generate these results (and often to the results themselves). Striking a balance between theory and pragmatism, while adhering to realist ontological underpinnings of generative causation and retroduction, is no easy task. This paper concludes by providing concrete recommendations for those who want to undertake a realist evaluation, with particular attention to cross-cultural settings, in light of the aforementioned challenges. In doing so, it aims to foster improved methodological rigour and help those engaging in this research methodology to work towards more appropriate and contextually relevant findings. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6830045/ /pubmed/31749993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001638 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Practice
Gilmore, Brynne
Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher
title Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher
title_full Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher
title_fullStr Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher
title_full_unstemmed Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher
title_short Realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher
title_sort realist evaluations in low- and middle-income countries: reflections and recommendations from the experiences of a foreign researcher
topic Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6830045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31749993
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001638
work_keys_str_mv AT gilmorebrynne realistevaluationsinlowandmiddleincomecountriesreflectionsandrecommendationsfromtheexperiencesofaforeignresearcher