Abstract

The realist approach can now be said to be part of the repertoire of evaluation methods. There has been a corresponding shift in methodological focus. Polemical thrust and counter-thrust about the realist contribution as compared to that of other evaluative approaches such as randomized trials and meta-analysis has given way to closer examination of its practice ‘on the ground’. This article seeks to make a contribution to the literature on how to conduct realist inquiry through a constructive critique of recently published ‘realist evaluations’.