CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 119Evaluation and Performance AssessmentCritical Realism in SociologyHealth Policy Implementation Science

Critical Realism as emancipatory action: the case for realistic evaluation in practice development

Wilson, Valerie, McCormack, Brendan·2006·Nursing Philosophy
DOI 10.1111/j.1466-769x.2006.00248.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To provide rigour when preparing a research design, the researcher needs to carefully consider not only the methodology but also the philosophical intent of the study. This, however, is often absent from reported research and provides the reader with little evidence by which to judge the merits of the chosen methodology and its influence on the study. The purpose of this paper is to set out the case for critical realism as a framework to guide appropriate action in practice development and realistic evaluation for understanding the consequences of those actions. It is evident that critical realism and critical social science share common ground. Emancipatory practice development (ePD) is based on the philosophy of critical social science and therefore by virtue is linked to the tenets of critical realism. Until now, the evaluation of ePD programme has been well served by 4th-generation evaluation. However, this paper outlines the need for a different approach to evaluation, one that is based on critical realism, that is concerned with emancipation, and that can be used in the ever-changing environment of clinical practice. Realistic evaluation not only links strongly to ePD programmes, but also serves as the basis for effective research questions that will test the outcomes of the research and inform the transferability of ePD mechanisms into differing contexts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1466-769x.2006.00248.x

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wilson, V., & McCormack, B.
Affiliations
  • Children's Hospital at Westmead (AU)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Valerie
ORCID
Venue
Nursing Philosophy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
45-57
ISSN
  • 1466-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-769X
DOI
10.1111/j.1466-769x.2006.00248.x
OpenAlex
W2098857408
Cited by
119
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 11 d)
Locations
  • Nursing Philosophy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Realism in Sociology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
critical realism, realist evaluation, critical social science, clinical practice development, research transferability, nursing practice
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Choice Behavior, Data Collection, Decision Making, Organizational, Freedom, Health Services Research, Humans, Nursing Staff, Organizational Innovation, Philosophy, Nursing, Power, Psychological, Research Design, Social Sciences, Organizational Culture, Program Evaluation, Nursing Research, Models, Nursing, Professional Autonomy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Knowledge, Empirical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review