What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The idea that underlying, generative mechanisms give rise to causal regularities has become a guiding principle across many social and natural science disciplines. A specific form of this enquiry, realist evaluation is gaining momentum in the evaluation of complex social interventions. It focuses on 'what works, how, in which conditions and for whom' using context, mechanism and outcome configurations as opposed to asking whether an intervention 'works'. Realist evaluation can be difficult to codify and requires considerable researcher reflection and creativity. As such there is often confusion when operationalising the method in practice. This article aims to clarify and further develop the concept of mechanism in realist evaluation and in doing so aid the learning of those operationalising the methodology. DISCUSSION: Using a social science illustration, we argue that disaggregating the concept of mechanism into its constituent parts helps to understand the difference between the resources offered by the intervention and the ways in which this changes the reasoning of participants. This in turn helps to distinguish between a context and mechanism. The notion of mechanisms 'firing' in social science research is explored, with discussions surrounding how this may stifle researchers' realist thinking. We underline the importance of conceptualising mechanisms as operating on a continuum, rather than as an 'on/off' switch. The discussions in this article will hopefully progress and operationalise realist methods. This development is likely to occur due to the infancy of the methodology and its recent increased profile and use in social science research. The arguments we present have been tested and are explained throughout the article using a social science illustration, evidencing their usability and value.
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
Mechanisms Linking Social Ties and Support to Physical and Mental Health
Thoits, P. A. (2011) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.1177/0022146510395592 · Cited by 4,076 · see citing works
RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-21 · Cited by 1,374 · see citing works
Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices
Prasad, V., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2014) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-1 · Cited by 723 · 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
RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12095 · Cited by 385 · see citing works
Social mechanisms without black boxes
Boudon, R. (1998) · Social Mechanisms · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511663901.008 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Baker, P., Hawkes, C., Wingrove, K., Demaio, A. R., Parkhurst, J., Thow, A. M., & Walls, H. (2018) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000485 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
Mills, T., Lawton, R., & Sheard, L. (2019) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Handley, M., Bunn, F., & Goodman, C. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015257 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Olivier de Sardan, J.-P., Diarra, A., & Moha, M. (2017) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0213-9 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Randell, R., Honey, S., Alvarado, N., Greenhalgh, J., Hindmarsh, J., Pearman, A., Jayne, D., Gardner, P., Gill, A., Kotze, A., et al. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028635 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citationAnstey Watkins, J., Goudge, J., Gómez-Olivé, F. X., Huxley, C., Dodd, K., & Griffiths, F. (2018) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000543 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Lauder, K., McDowall, A., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.893469 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Garnham, L., Rolfe, S., Anderson, I., Seaman, P., Godwin, J., & Donaldson, C. (2022) · Journal of Housing and the Built Environment · doi:10.1007/s10901-021-09852-x · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Abrams, R., Spiers, J., Maben, J., Grosvenor, W., Touray, M., & Gage, H. (2024) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-024-03806-0 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Green, F., Preece, C., Allen, K., Manzi, S., Mannes, J., Callaghan, L., Berry, V., de Lima, E. S., Woodburn, A., Hobbs, T., et al. (2026) · Journal of Prevention · doi:10.1007/s10935-025-00888-1 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dalkin, S. M., Greenhalgh, J., Jones, D., Cunningham, B., & Lhussier, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Leeds (GB)
- Northumbria University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dalkin, Sonia Michelle
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2015-04-16
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-49
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4408605
- OpenAlex
- W1978372683
- Cited by
- 896
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 107 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 163 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 38.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Northumbria University
- Medical Research Council (MR/K02325X/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- realist evaluation, mechanisms, context-mechanism-outcome configurations, causal regularities, researcher self-reflection
- MeSH terms
- Health Services Research, Humans, Palliative Care, Social Sciences, Program Evaluation
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