Blurring the boundaries between synthesis and evaluation. A customized realist evaluative synthesis into adolescent risk behavior prevention

Realist methodologies have been increasingly advocated for the investigation of complex social issues. Public health programs, such as those designed to prevent adolescent risk behavior, are typically considered complex. In conducting a realist review of the empirical literature relating to such programs, we encountered several challenges, including (a) an overabundance of empirical evidence, (b) a problematic level of heterogeneity within and between methodological approaches, (c) discrepancies between theoretical underpinnings and program operationalization, (d) homogeneity of program outcomes, with very little variation in program effectiveness, and (d) a paucity of description relating to content and process. To overcome these challenges, we developed a customized approach to realist evidence synthesis, drawing on the VICTORE (Volition, Implementation, Contexts, Time, Outcomes, Rivalry, and Emergence) complexity checklist and incorporating stakeholder engagement as primary data to achieve greater depth of understanding relating to contextual and mechanistic factors, and the complex interactions between them. Here we discuss the benefits of this adapted methodology alongside an overview of the research through which the methodology was developed. A key finding from this research was that combining the complexity checklist with primary data from stakeholder engagement enabled us to systematically interrogate the data across data sources, uncovering and evidencing mechanisms which may otherwise have remained hidden, giving greater ontological depth to our research findings. This paper builds on key methodological developments in realist research, demonstrating how realist methodologies can be customized to overcome challenges in developing and refining program theory from the literature, and contributes to the broader literature of innovative approaches to realist research

“…the point is to change it”: Critical realism and human geography

This paper picks up themes discussed in Cox’s (2013) ‘Notes on a brief encounter: critical realism, historical materialism and human geography’. I argue that perhaps the encounter was more complex than Cox allows. At core Cox underplays, or marginalises, the discussion of causality and dismisses the significance of ontology stressing instead epistemology. The paper makes a case for another reading of the debate, one that has continuing significance

A discursive psychology analysis of emotional support for men with colorectal cancer

Recent research into both masculinity and health, and the provision of social support for people with cancer has focussed upon the variations that may underlie broad assumptions about masculine health behaviour. The research reported here pursues this interest in variation by addressing the discursive properties of talk about emotional support, by men with colorectal cancer - an understudied group in the social support and cancer literature. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight men with colorectal cancer, and the transcripts analysed using an intensive discursive psychology approach. From this analysis two contrasting approaches to this group of men’s framing of emotional support in the context of cancer are described. First, talk about cancer was positioned as incompatible with preferred masculine identities. Second, social contact that affirms personal relationships was given value, subject to constraints arising from discourses concerning appropriate emotional expression. These results are discussed with reference to both the extant research literature on masculinity and health, and their clinical implications, particularly the advice on social support given to older male cancer patients, their families and friends

Bodies, Representations, Situations, Practices: qualitative research on affect, emotion and feeling

We introduce this special issue of Qualitative Research in Psychology by discussing four themes which, in our view, characterise the collective significance of the papers in this special issue. Even in highlighting these thematic similarities, however, we point to important differences in their manifestation across different papers. In discussing bodies, we highlight an underexplored distinction between the body as ground of experience and the body as the enabler of experience. We also draw attention to three issues relating to (linguistic) representations of feelings, emotions and affect: the problem of ineffability; the role of naming feeling; and how to methodologically and analytically account for differences in the ways that feelings are talked about and named. Regarding situatedness in space and time, we note at least four analytical positions, which frame and reveal different aspects of affective phenomena. Finally, with respect to affective practices we identify two quite different approaches that, whilst sharing some characteristics, are different enough to warrant further specification when researchers deploy this term. Whilst welcoming the apparent trend away from purely language-based methods, we also offer some suggestions for how researchers can move further down this path. Nonetheless qualitative research on feeling, affect and emotion is in fine fettle. As the contributions attest, the time is ripe for this special issue of Qualitative Research in Psychology

The construction of identities in narratives about serious leisure occupations

Engagement in occupation contributes to the shaping of identity throughout the human life. The act of telling about such engagement involves interaction based on symbolic meaning; the speaker constructing an identity by conveying how the occupation is personally meaningful. This study explored meaning in narratives told by people who engage in serious leisure occupations. A total of 78 narratives were extracted from interviews with 17 people who invest considerable time and other resources into their leisure. Analysis focused on the content, structure and performance of each narrative in order to explore meaning. The meanings were organised into a framework based around three dimensions: the located self, the active self and the changing self. Each dimension has facets that the individual might emphasise, constructing a unique identity. The framework offers a structured basis for conceptualising how occupation contributes to the shaping of the internalised self and the socially situated identity

Understanding Anthropological Understanding: for a merological anthropology

In this paper I argue for a merological anthropology in which ideas of ‘partiality’ and ‘practical adequacy’ provide a way out of the impasse of relativism which is implied by post-modernism and the related abandonment of a concern with ‘truth’. Ideas such as ‘aptness’ and ‘faithfulness’ enable us to re-establish empirical foundations without having to espouse a simple realism which has been rightly criticised. Ideas taken from ethnomethodology, particularly the way we bootstrap from ‘practical adequacy’ to ‘warrants for confidence’ point to a merological anthropology in which we recognize that we do not and cannot know everything, but that we can have reasons for being confident in the little we know

Unravelling social constructionism

Social constructionist research is an area of rapidly expanding influence that has brought together theorists from a range of different disciplines. At the same time, however, it has fuelled the development of a new set of divisions. There would appear to be an increasing uneasiness about the implications of a thoroughgoing constructionism, with some regarding it as both theoretically parasitic and politically paralysing. In this paper I review these debates and clarify some of the issues involved. My main argument is that social constructionism is not best understood as a unitary paradigm and that one very important difference is between what Edwards (1997) calls its ontological and epistemic forms. I argue that an appreciation of this distinction not only exhausts many of the disputes that currently divide the constructionist community, but also takes away from the apparent radicalism of much of this work