Re: [Critical-Realism] Summary of RTS2 Preface

["Alex Clark" <alex.clark@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That's a really good point Brian - I have worked with Pawson and Tilley's realist evaluation approach. Agree - a little too mechanical and linear. Significantly, they give no clear definition of what a mechanism is and through at least their 97 book, there is a degree of flexibility (or even inconsistency...)  in how they define mechanism.
 
I think there are also superficial mechanisms and deeper causal mechanisms - a distinction that their approach does not make...
 
Interested in others thoughts...
 
Alexander M Clark PhD BA (Hons) RN
Assistant Professor
AHFMR Population Health Investigator
Faculty of Nursing
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 
Canada T6R2G3
Tel: 001 780 492 8347
Fex: 001 780 492 2551

________________________________

From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Brian Dick
Sent: Wed 6/13/2007 8:58 AM
To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Critical-Realism] Summary of RTS2 Preface



Hi John,

I've always found the notion of 'generative mechanism' problematic because
of its (mechanical) connotations.  I think that this becomes an even bigger
problem when we move on to the analysis of society where social relations
become central.  That is, mechanisms seem to point to a more substantive
interpretation rather than relational (in Sewell's terminology).  Of course,
this is not what Bhaskar is arguing, but for others who do not understand
what is meant by the term it can lead to some confusion.

I'm not completely sure what would be a better alternative.  Here are some
ideas: 'generative apparatus', 'generative actants' (too Latourian?),
'generative process', 'generative thingamabob' :)  (Oh, and 'generative
thingamajig').

Brian



Thanks, Ruth.

I'd like to raise the issue of 'mechanism'. This is a fundamental
concept & yet quite difficult to define for the uninitiated.

Trying to persuade colleagues of the meaning & implications of this
term, I can see their eyes (& possibly minds) start to glaze over. The
language is already starting to become a little abstract for some &
carries the unfortunate & unintended disadvantage of using such a
mechanistic metaphor, quite contrary to the aims of CR? Sayer refers to
mechanisms as 'the ways of acting of causal powers' - but this might not
attract CR critics/agnostics either.

How do the list think the term might be redescribed in a way that might
make it more digestible for those unfamiliar with RB & subsequent
writers?

John
_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism