在现实主义评价中检验中间理论:参与式组织干预的案例

IF 2.4 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Hamid Roodbari, K. Nielsen, C. Axtell, Susan E. Peters, Glorian Sorensen
{"title":"在现实主义评价中检验中间理论:参与式组织干预的案例","authors":"Hamid Roodbari, K. Nielsen, C. Axtell, Susan E. Peters, Glorian Sorensen","doi":"10.1108/ijwhm-12-2021-0219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeRealist evaluation seeks to answer the question of “what works for whom in which circumstances?” through developing and testing middle range theories (MRTs). MRTs are programme theories that outline how certain mechanisms of an intervention work in a specific context to bring about certain outcomes. In this paper, the authors tested an initial MRT about the mechanism of participation. The authors used evidence from a participatory organisational intervention in five worksites of a large multi-national organisation in the US food service industry.Design/methodology/approachQualitative data from 89 process tracking documents and 24 post-intervention, semi-structured interviews with intervention stakeholders were analysed using template analysis.FindingsThe operationalised mechanism was partial worksite managers’ engagement with the research team. Six contextual factors (e.g. high workload) impaired participation, and one contextual factor (i.e. existing participatory practices) facilitated participation. Worksite managers’ participation resulted in limited improvement in their awareness of how working conditions can impact on their employees’ safety, health, and well-being. Based on these findings, the authors modified the initial MRT into an empirical MRT.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the understanding of “what works for whom in which circumstances” regarding participation in organisational interventions.","PeriodicalId":45766,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Workplace Health Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing middle range theories in realist evaluation: a case of a participatory organisational intervention\",\"authors\":\"Hamid Roodbari, K. Nielsen, C. Axtell, Susan E. Peters, Glorian Sorensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijwhm-12-2021-0219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeRealist evaluation seeks to answer the question of “what works for whom in which circumstances?” through developing and testing middle range theories (MRTs). MRTs are programme theories that outline how certain mechanisms of an intervention work in a specific context to bring about certain outcomes. In this paper, the authors tested an initial MRT about the mechanism of participation. The authors used evidence from a participatory organisational intervention in five worksites of a large multi-national organisation in the US food service industry.Design/methodology/approachQualitative data from 89 process tracking documents and 24 post-intervention, semi-structured interviews with intervention stakeholders were analysed using template analysis.FindingsThe operationalised mechanism was partial worksite managers’ engagement with the research team. Six contextual factors (e.g. high workload) impaired participation, and one contextual factor (i.e. existing participatory practices) facilitated participation. Worksite managers’ participation resulted in limited improvement in their awareness of how working conditions can impact on their employees’ safety, health, and well-being. Based on these findings, the authors modified the initial MRT into an empirical MRT.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the understanding of “what works for whom in which circumstances” regarding participation in organisational interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45766,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Workplace Health Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Workplace Health Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwhm-12-2021-0219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Workplace Health Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwhm-12-2021-0219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的现实主义评价试图通过发展和测试中程理论来回答“什么在什么情况下对谁有效?”的问题。MRT是一种程序理论,概述了干预的某些机制如何在特定背景下发挥作用,以产生某些结果。在本文中,作者测试了一个关于参与机制的初始MRT。作者使用了来自美国食品服务业一个大型跨国组织的五个工作场所的参与性组织干预的证据。设计/方法/方法使用模板分析对89份过程跟踪文件和24份干预后干预利益相关者的半结构化访谈中的定性数据进行了分析。发现可操作的机制是部分工地经理与研究团队的互动。六个情境因素(如高工作量)阻碍了参与,一个情境因子(即现有的参与实践)促进了参与。工地经理的参与导致他们对工作条件如何影响员工安全、健康和福祉的认识得到了有限的提高。基于这些发现,作者将最初的MRT修改为经验MRT。Originality/value本文有助于理解关于参与组织干预的“什么在什么情况下对谁有效”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing middle range theories in realist evaluation: a case of a participatory organisational intervention
PurposeRealist evaluation seeks to answer the question of “what works for whom in which circumstances?” through developing and testing middle range theories (MRTs). MRTs are programme theories that outline how certain mechanisms of an intervention work in a specific context to bring about certain outcomes. In this paper, the authors tested an initial MRT about the mechanism of participation. The authors used evidence from a participatory organisational intervention in five worksites of a large multi-national organisation in the US food service industry.Design/methodology/approachQualitative data from 89 process tracking documents and 24 post-intervention, semi-structured interviews with intervention stakeholders were analysed using template analysis.FindingsThe operationalised mechanism was partial worksite managers’ engagement with the research team. Six contextual factors (e.g. high workload) impaired participation, and one contextual factor (i.e. existing participatory practices) facilitated participation. Worksite managers’ participation resulted in limited improvement in their awareness of how working conditions can impact on their employees’ safety, health, and well-being. Based on these findings, the authors modified the initial MRT into an empirical MRT.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the understanding of “what works for whom in which circumstances” regarding participation in organisational interventions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Workplace Health Management
International Journal of Workplace Health Management PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
22.70%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: Coverage includes, but is not restricted to: ■Best practice examples of successful workplace health solutions ■Promoting compliance with workplace health legislation ■Primary care and primary prevention ■Promoting health in the workplace ■The business case for workplace health promotion ■Workplace health issues and concerns, such as mental health, disability management, violence and the workplace, stress, workplace hazards, risk factor modification and work-life balance ■Workplace Culture ■Workplace policies supporting healthy workplace ■Inducing organizational change ■Occupational health & safety issues ■Educating the employer and employee ■Promoting health outside of the workplace
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信