The ResQ approach: theory building across disciplines using realist evaluation science and QCA

ABSTRACT

The last decades have seen an enormous growth in published research and evaluations, which makes it difficult for a researcher to stay up-to-date in their own field, let alone complement their knowledge with insights from other fields. In this paper we give an elaborate overview of a methodology that aims to tackle this task. It builds on the realist evaluation science approach and combines it with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), hence its name: the ResQ approach. Central to the approach are generative mechanisms that can be found across fields, domains, sectors and contexts. The approach sets out to synthesize the evidence on the circumstances linked to the triggering of these mechanisms. QCA is used to identify the most relevant conditions, leading to theories around these mechanisms, called ‘mechanism concepts’. New studies can test, and refine the mechanism concepts, setting up a continuous cycle of theory-building across disciplines enabling us to learn from other fields, disciplines and contexts in a systematic way.

KEYWORDS:

• Realism
• mechanism
• research synthesis
• theory building
• qualitative comparative analysis

Disclosure statement

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

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. This symmetry between sufficiency and necessity is only the case in crisp sets (i.e. either a case is in or out) and the truth table contains no empty rows (see below) and not when fuzzy sets are used (i.e. a case can be partly in and out of a set).

2. We refer to the standard works on QCA for more details (e.g. Schneider & Wagemann, 2012) on how to go from a data matrix containing fuzzy set-membership scores to a truth table.

3. Here, we focus on the analysis of sufficient conditions; the analysis of necessary conditions is somewhat different and can be found in Goertz and Starr (2002) and Schneider and Wagemann (2012) among others.

4. A more extensive discussion of mechanism concepts in the ResQ approach will be discussed in a future paper.

5. Similarly, both Pawson (2013) and Sayer (1992) place a relatively strong emphasis on the need to know the necessary components and scope conditions of the generic conceptual platforms.

6. The difference can be related to what Sayer (1992) calls structure and conditions (cf. moderators).

7. As will be discussed in a future article, in contrast to Dalkin et al. (2015) I take the position that mechanisms are either triggered or not. My conceptualization of a mechanism states that it is either possessed by a specific system or not and does not leave room for a partial possession When it seems that they give stronger or weaker outcomes this is only due to the effect of other mechanisms at work at the same time.

8. See note 6.

9. Proxy equivalents are small clues that indicate the possible existence of a specific mechanism (Jagosh, 2020).

10. As mentioned earlier, this is different from the conceptualization put forward by for example, Dalkin et al. (2015) and will be more extensively discussed in a future paper.

Additional information

Funding

The author and this research was funded by a ‘postdoctoral research fellowship for fundamental research’ of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO-Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), file number: 12V2720N.

Notes on contributors

Dimitri Renmans

Dimitri Renmans is a FWO postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute of Development Policy (University of Antwerp) and the Institute of Tropical Medicine. He has a PhD in Development Studies from the University of Antwerp. His current research focuses on realist evaluation and the development of a research/evaluation synthesis method that combines realist evaluation science with qualitative comparative analysis. He teaches ‘monitoring and evaluation’ in the Advanced Master in Global Health and the Advanced Master in Development evaluation and Management.