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 -