Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article describes how laboratory experiments are used by social psychologists and those in related fields to study conflict, negotiation, and mediation. In a laboratory experiment, the researcher experimentally controls one or more variables in controlled, artificial settings that induce processes likely to occur naturally. Laboratory experiments are the primary method used to establish cause-and-effect relationships among variables and to reduce alternative explanations; thus they are primarily concerned with validity of explanation. In this article, we describe several basic design features including conceptual replication, precise manipulation, and the use of a moderator variable, which all help assess the processes underlying a research finding. These design features foster conceptual internal validity, which describes the impact of one variable on another and the quality of such an explanation. Conceptual internal validity provides a basis for generalization of findings and thus new research. It also fosters strong inference, which helps build cumulative knowledge. Laboratory experiments are not well suited to answer all questions and problems – for example, they may not produce deep understanding of a particular historical event and must be supplemented by other methods, such as surveys and case studies.

This article takes a balanced look at the recent publication Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: a Framework for Assessing Research Evidence (Liz Spencer, Jane Ritchie, Jane Lewis and Lucy Dillon), published by the UK Cabinet Office. Set in a context of an absence in the UK of a defined professional community of evaluators - unlike in the USA - the article examines the promises and limitations of the Framework. The Framework emerges as a useful document for legitimating the use of more varied and comprehensive data sets, but shows certain weaknesses in acknowledging the particular challenge of evaluation practice, as opposed to the mere application of social science methods.

Mental Health Link - a facilitated programme - aimed to develop systems within primary care and links with specialists to improve care for patients with long-term mental illness. A process evaluation based on Pawson and Tilley's Realistic Evaluation complemented a randomized controlled trial. This article describes the method developed for this 'realistic evaluation', the mechanisms behind the integration of linked specialist workers and discusses practical and theoretical issues arising from the use of the realistic evaluation framework as a way of explaining the results of trials and service development. Retrospective interviews identified the important outcomes and were used to construct 'Context-Mechanism-Outcome' configurations. The 12 case studies represented what had happened. A second-level analysis using analytic induction developed 'middle range theories' designed to be of value to those developing care elsewhere. The intervention was successful in stimulating productive joint working, through case discussions, but often failed to ensure a review of progress.

Evaluation of recently introduced policy instruments (RIPIs) is especially problematic, because only some effects have occurred, and information on them is imperfect. Policy makers and the public at large are, however, particularly interested in early evaluations. This article examines problems with the retrospective evaluation of RIPIs, and explores the advantages of using intervention theories in these evaluations. Two case studies from the field of environmental policy instruments are used as examples. It is argued that when evidence on final outcomes is largely unavailable, an intervention theory is a useful tool to overcome information problems. By using intervention theories, it is possible to identify observable prerequisites that precede intended, but not yet occurred, outcomes.