Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation

By A. Blamey, M. Mackenzie. 2007

437 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Realist review (2021, background): “Finally, a realist review can be demanding both in terms of time and resources as it necessitates consultation with stakeholders as well as multiple iterations of theory building and testing (Blamey & Mackenzie, 2007).”
A New Realistic Evaluation Analysis Method (2012, methodology): “…et al., 2007) (b) Selection of key relevant theories from published literature, including applying relevant theories from another field of study (Blamey & Mackenzie, 2007; Evans & Killoran, 2000; Kennedy et al., 2005; Leone, 2008; Pawson & Tilley, 2001; Timmins & Miller, 2007; Tolson et al.,…”
RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations (2016, neutral): “such as other theory-based approaches) [27].”
Rethinking models of professional learning as tools: a conceptual analysis to inform research and practice (2018, methodology): “These five models can be thought of as general models of professional learning given that they are intended to have wide applicability in contrast to local or specific models that might arise, for example, from the application of a theory of change (Blamey and Mackenzie 2007) or a logic model (Roger”