Clarifying realist analytic processes and interdisciplinary consensus processes in complex health intervention [Engager] research: A detailed worked example of Judgemental Rationality in actionCitation formats

  • External authors:
  • Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt
  • Lauren Weston
  • Richard Byng
  • Alex Stirzaker
  • Mark Pearson
  • Sarah Brand
  • Mike Maguire
  • Graham Durcan
  • Jonathan P. Graham
  • Tim Kirkpatrick
  • Christabel Owens
  • Cath Quinn

Standard

Clarifying realist analytic processes and interdisciplinary consensus processes in complex health intervention [Engager] research: A detailed worked example of Judgemental Rationality in action : A worked example of Judgemental Rationality in action. / Rybczynska-Bunt, Sarah; Weston, Lauren ; Byng, Richard; Stirzaker, Alex; Lennox, Charlotte; Pearson, Mark; Brand, Sarah; Maguire, Mike; Durcan, Graham; Graham, Jonathan P.; Leonard, Sarah; Shaw, Jennifer; Kirkpatrick, Tim; Owens, Christabel; Quinn, Cath.

In: Evaluation, 23.08.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Rybczynska-Bunt, Sarah ; Weston, Lauren ; Byng, Richard ; Stirzaker, Alex ; Lennox, Charlotte ; Pearson, Mark ; Brand, Sarah ; Maguire, Mike ; Durcan, Graham ; Graham, Jonathan P. ; Leonard, Sarah ; Shaw, Jennifer ; Kirkpatrick, Tim ; Owens, Christabel ; Quinn, Cath. / Clarifying realist analytic processes and interdisciplinary consensus processes in complex health intervention [Engager] research: A detailed worked example of Judgemental Rationality in action : A worked example of Judgemental Rationality in action. In: Evaluation. 2021.

Bibtex

@article{e5aa475d08ab47c1a112e5cc61e4f844,
title = "Clarifying realist analytic processes and interdisciplinary consensus processes in complex health intervention [Engager] research: A detailed worked example of Judgemental Rationality in action: A worked example of Judgemental Rationality in action",
abstract = "Judgemental rationality is infrequently referenced within discussions of Realist Evaluations. Judgemental rationality refers to researchers{\textquoteright} capacity to assess which, potential, meanings provide the most credible explanations. In evaluation work, rationale{\textquoteright}s for analysis are provided though rarely do we see how an evaluator made judgements between competing theories, and which theories were discarded and why. We provide a worked example of the application of judgemental rationality. The Engager intervention offered support to prison leavers with common mental health problems. The data for 24, purposively sampled, participants from the intervention arm of the trial, were integrated. Bhaskar{\textquoteright}s (2016) DREIC, a 5-step analytical procedure, was used to transfactually theorise and interrogate the inferences made within, and across, cases. The findings demonstrated that the intervention was more effective when practitioners developed an in-depth understanding of the participant. We recommend that intervention developers look for ways to enhance therapeutic competencies and judgemental rationality in practitioner teams. ",
keywords = "Judgemental rationality, realist evaluation, process evaluation, transfactual theorising, interdisciplinarity",
author = "Sarah Rybczynska-Bunt and Lauren Weston and Richard Byng and Alex Stirzaker and Charlotte Lennox and Mark Pearson and Sarah Brand and Mike Maguire and Graham Durcan and Graham, {Jonathan P.} and Sarah Leonard and Jennifer Shaw and Tim Kirkpatrick and Christabel Owens and Cath Quinn",
note = "Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This report is independent research which was supported by PenARC and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (Grant number: RP-PG-1210-12011). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Richard Byng was partially supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2021.",
year = "2021",
month = aug,
day = "23",
doi = "10.1177/13563890211037699",
language = "English",
journal = "Evaluation",
issn = "1356-3890",
publisher = "Sage Publications Ltd",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clarifying realist analytic processes and interdisciplinary consensus processes in complex health intervention [Engager] research: A detailed worked example of Judgemental Rationality in action

T2 - A worked example of Judgemental Rationality in action

AU - Rybczynska-Bunt, Sarah

AU - Weston, Lauren

AU - Byng, Richard

AU - Stirzaker, Alex

AU - Lennox, Charlotte

AU - Pearson, Mark

AU - Brand, Sarah

AU - Maguire, Mike

AU - Durcan, Graham

AU - Graham, Jonathan P.

AU - Leonard, Sarah

AU - Shaw, Jennifer

AU - Kirkpatrick, Tim

AU - Owens, Christabel

AU - Quinn, Cath

N1 - Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This report is independent research which was supported by PenARC and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (Grant number: RP-PG-1210-12011). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Richard Byng was partially supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula. Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2021.

PY - 2021/8/23

Y1 - 2021/8/23

N2 - Judgemental rationality is infrequently referenced within discussions of Realist Evaluations. Judgemental rationality refers to researchers’ capacity to assess which, potential, meanings provide the most credible explanations. In evaluation work, rationale’s for analysis are provided though rarely do we see how an evaluator made judgements between competing theories, and which theories were discarded and why. We provide a worked example of the application of judgemental rationality. The Engager intervention offered support to prison leavers with common mental health problems. The data for 24, purposively sampled, participants from the intervention arm of the trial, were integrated. Bhaskar’s (2016) DREIC, a 5-step analytical procedure, was used to transfactually theorise and interrogate the inferences made within, and across, cases. The findings demonstrated that the intervention was more effective when practitioners developed an in-depth understanding of the participant. We recommend that intervention developers look for ways to enhance therapeutic competencies and judgemental rationality in practitioner teams.

AB - Judgemental rationality is infrequently referenced within discussions of Realist Evaluations. Judgemental rationality refers to researchers’ capacity to assess which, potential, meanings provide the most credible explanations. In evaluation work, rationale’s for analysis are provided though rarely do we see how an evaluator made judgements between competing theories, and which theories were discarded and why. We provide a worked example of the application of judgemental rationality. The Engager intervention offered support to prison leavers with common mental health problems. The data for 24, purposively sampled, participants from the intervention arm of the trial, were integrated. Bhaskar’s (2016) DREIC, a 5-step analytical procedure, was used to transfactually theorise and interrogate the inferences made within, and across, cases. The findings demonstrated that the intervention was more effective when practitioners developed an in-depth understanding of the participant. We recommend that intervention developers look for ways to enhance therapeutic competencies and judgemental rationality in practitioner teams.

KW - Judgemental rationality

KW - realist evaluation

KW - process evaluation

KW - transfactual theorising

KW - interdisciplinarity

U2 - 10.1177/13563890211037699

DO - 10.1177/13563890211037699

M3 - Article

JO - Evaluation

JF - Evaluation

SN - 1356-3890

ER -