Gilmore Brynne
Centre for Global Health, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Oct 31;4(5):e001638. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001638. eCollection 2019.
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.
现实主义评价作为一种用于探究复杂健康干预措施中的生成性因果关系以理解项目“如何、为何以及对谁”有效的方法,正受到越来越多的关注。趋势表明,这种方法使用的激增也适用于低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)的研究。在这种背景下,非政府组织(NGOs)和其他项目实施者也开始注意到使用现实主义评价进行项目评估的价值。然而,在低收入和中等收入国家对现实主义评价的使用探索有限,尤其是外国研究者的使用情况。本文借鉴了作者在撒哈拉以南非洲三个不同地区进行两项现实主义评价的经验:坦桑尼亚的蒙德穆、乌干达的卡巴莱和肯尼亚的马萨比特。这两项现实主义评价被用作一种运筹学方法来研究两个非政府组织的社区健康项目。本文重点介绍了作者在整个方法过程中遇到的四个主要挑战:(1)现实主义访谈中普遍存在的权力不平衡;(2)通过翻译开展工作以及这对识别情境 - 机制 - 结果配置意味着什么;(3)对背景的熟悉程度有限以及作为一名“参与式研究者”;(4)在测试和完善过程中使用或依赖“WEIRD”理论(即基于对西方、受过教育、工业化、富裕、民主人群的研究得出的理论)。现实主义评价那句诱人且直白的口号——找出“什么有效、对谁有效以及为何有效”,与用于得出这些结果的方法(以及通常与结果本身)的复杂性形成了鲜明对比。在坚持生成性因果关系和追溯法的现实主义本体论基础的同时,在理论与实用主义之间取得平衡并非易事。本文最后针对那些希望进行现实主义评价的人,尤其是考虑到上述挑战的跨文化背景下的研究者,提供了具体建议。这样做旨在提高方法的严谨性,并帮助那些采用这种研究方法的人朝着更合适且与背景相关的研究结果努力。