Re: [Critical-Realism] Summary of RTS2 Preface

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

Great questions John - I work with health professionals and policy people mostly and they are really comfortable with thinking in terms of causes, complexity and mechanisms as this reflects often how they see patients and their practice. I often use examples of deep causation in relation to service usage to explain why understanding what is going on in the real domain is a prerequisite to reasoned action - and how agency and structure are both important in understanding events in the actual domain. It is easier for me to talk of mechanisms and deep causation in terms of examples than operationalized definitions, partly because the latter are scant. Talking about 'complexity' and embedded systems also helps to make it all make sense. 
 
Researchers are more sceptical because we like (esteem) to intervene, correlate and predict rather than look at causes. Causation is linked strongly to the RCT (randomized control trial) and the rush to intervene preceeds or replaces understanding what is going on in my field.

A
 
 



Hello Alex

I think you are right about mechanisms existing at different levels of
nature/society but to avoid a more complex discussion at this stage, I
am thinking about how we would sell a CR approach to
colleagues/students/ policymakers & anyone else looking for a new way of
understanding/doing research. Unless our persuasion is effective at this
stage, we'll never keep them long enough to move on to more complex
questions.

How would we define mechanisms to them?
How & why is this kind of approach better than the ones already
available?

John



-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex
Clark
Sent: 13 June 2007 16:16
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Summary of RTS2 Preface

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

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.

_______________________________________________
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