Vignettes to Support Theory Refinement: Methodological Insights From a Realist Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Realist evaluation methodology aims to understand social programmes by revealing what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how and why. Realist evaluation starts with generating initial programme theories (IPTs), which are subsequently tested and refined systematically using a multi-methods approach. This article describes a case study of the utilisation of vignettes, or short hypothetical stories, as part of the teacher-learner cycles recommended within realist evaluation. First, we explore the methodological alignment between vignettes and realist evaluation. We then present a specific case example of the application of vignettes as a data collection tool and discuss the potential advantages and the challenges of using vignettes within realist evaluation. Finally, we offer recommendations for researchers who wish to employ vignettes as a powerful instrument that can be used to better explain IPTs to participants and, in turn, enrich their participation in theory refinement within the realist evaluation framework.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Jagosh, J., Bush, P. L., Salsberg, J., Macaulay, A. C., Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Green, L. W., Herbert, C. P., & Pluye, P. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1 · Cited by 758 · see citing works
Marchal, B., van Belle, S., van Olmen, J., Hoerée, T., & Kegels, G. (2012) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389012442444 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
Jagosh, J. (2019) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044451 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Aldamman, K., Vallières, D. F., & Gilmore, B.
- Affiliations
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- Trinity Centre for Global Health, School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Gilmore, Brynne
- Venue
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-01
- Volume
- 23
- ISSN
- 1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4390750559
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 3.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (722523)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- vignettes, realist evaluation, theory refinement, data collection methods, participation, social programs
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