Realist synthesis: a critique and an alternative

ABSTRACT

Realist synthesis is often offered as a useful strategy to understand intervention complexity. Its unique selling point is its basis in a critical realist philosophy of science. However, we argue that the philosophical basis of current approaches to realist synthesis is closer to positivism, notably the focus on bringing a theoretical reduction to complex problems, a strategy eschewed in critical realism’s concern with complex independent ontology. We critique three recently published reviews to illustrate our arguments and apply an analytic strategy to findings from a realist review that, we argue, is more in line with critical realism.

KEYWORDS:

• Realism
• complexity theory
• realist reviews, critique

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to Ginny Brunton and James Thomas for their work on the original review and for comments on drafts of this paper. We would like to thank Priscilla Alderson for correcting our mistakes regarding the philosophy of critical realism and providing us with some useful illustrative examples. We would also like to thank David Byrne who introduced us to complexity theory and explained its connections to critical realism as well as mentioning the article by Hatt (2009).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kate Hinds

Kate Hinds has undertaken systematic reviews in public health for the past 11 years. She has extensive experience of qualitative and quantitative synthesis with specialist expertise in realist review methods. She has recently completed a PhD, using critical realism as the underlying ontology.

Kelly Dickson

Kelly Dickson has been conducting mixed-methods systematic reviews since 2004. Her most recent research has focused on the production of policy-relevant evidence synthesis to inform the design and delivery of complex interventions in mental health and substance misuse.