Cited by 691Evaluation and Performance AssessmentFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation

Manzano, Ana·2016·Evaluation

Abstract

Pawson and Tilley suggest a unique strategy for conducting qualitative interviews within realist evaluation studies. Theories are placed before the interviewee for them to comment on with a view to providing refinement. The subject matter of the interview is the researcher’s theory and interviewees confirm, falsify, and refine this theory. This relationship – described as a teacher–learner cycle – is integral to realist evaluations. This article provides an overview of how interview techniques have been applied in realist evaluations in the last decade as well as suggesting two guiding principles. The first one relates to the design of realist studies and the second one explains how to ask questions like a realist, and proposes three different phases in realist interviews: theory gleaning, theory refining and theory consolidation. The article aims to contribute to a growing understanding of the practical and epistemological challenges presented by primary data collection in realist evaluation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1356389016638615

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manzano, A.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Manzano, Ana
Venue
Evaluation
Published
2016-04-05
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
342-360
ISSN
  • 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7153
OpenAlex
W2333337175
Cited by
691
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 73 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 120 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
30.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evaluation (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
realist evaluation, qualitative interviews, interview techniques, theory refinement, primary data collection, epistemology of evaluation, interview question design

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