The Realist Survey: How Respondents’ Voices Can Be Used to Test and Revise Correlational Models

Abstract

This article introduces the realist survey, an extension of the realistic interview. In a realistic interview, the researcher adapts his or her own theory in response to comments by interviewees, explaining the extent to which the theory applies or does not apply to themselves. The realist survey expands the reach of the realistic interview by including application to generally accepted theories, and it enhances the generalizability of its outcomes through the use of quantitative survey data. As a result, this extended realist interview/survey is a tool that can be used by researchers in widely varying contexts. A realist survey on the effects of the often replicated technology acceptance model shows that the original model is not the best realist fit.

Keywords

mixed methods realist survey respondent validation realist model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

(2001a). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Abbott

(2001b). Time matters: On theory and method. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bryman

Becker

Sempik

(2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 261-276. doi:10.1080/13645570701401644

Cartwright

(2007). Hunting causes and using them: Approaches in philosophy and economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chen

H.-R.

Tseng

H.-F.

(2012). Factors that influence acceptance of web-based e-learning systems for the in-service education of junior high school teachers in Taiwan. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 398-406. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.11.007

Claeskens

Hjort

N. L.

(2008). Model selection and model averaging. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Coffey

A. J.

Atkinson

P. A.

(1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Danziger

(1985). The methodological imperative in psychology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 15, 1-13. doi:10.1177/004839318501500101

Davis

F. D.

(1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Cambridge: MIT Sloan School of Management.

10.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/249008

11.

Hesse-Biber

(2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 455-468. doi:10.1177/1077800410364611

12.

Hookway

(2013). Pragmatism. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/pragmatism/

13.

Howe

K. R.

(2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 42-61. doi:10.1177/1077800403259491

14.

Howe

K. R.

(2012). Mixed methods, triangulation, and causal explanation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 89-96. doi:10.1177/1558689812437187

15.

Johnson

R. B.

Stefurak

(2013). Considering the evidence-and-credibility discussion in evaluation through the lens of dialectical pluralism. New Directions for Evaluation, 2013, 37-48. doi:10.1002/ev.20056

16.

Keil

Beranek

P. M.

Konsynski

B. R.

(1995). Usefulness and ease of use: Field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decision Support Systems, 13, 75-91. doi:10.1016/0167-9236(94)e0032-m

17.

Lee

Kozar

K. A.

Larsen

K. R. T.

(2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 752-780.

18.

Limayem

Cheung

C. M. K.

(2008). Understanding information systems continuance: The case of internet-based learning technologies. Information & Management, 45, 227-232. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.02.005

19.

Maxwell

J. A.

(1995). Diversity and methodology in a changing world. Pedagogia, 30, 32-40.

20.

Maxwell

J. A.

Mittapalli

(2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Morse

J. M.

Niehaus

(2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

22.

Motaghian

Hassanzadeh

Moghadam

D. K.

(2013). Factors affecting university instructors’ adoption of web-based learning systems: Case study of Iran. Computers & Education, 61, 158-167. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.016

23.

O’Cathain

(2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Pawson

(1996). Theorizing the interview. British Journal of Sociology, 47, 295-314. doi:10.2307/591728

25.

Pawson

Tilley

(1997). Realistic evaluation. London, UK: Sage.

26.

Schoonenboom

(2012). The use of technology as one of the possible means of performing instructor tasks: Putting technology acceptance in context. Computers & Education, 59, 1309-1316. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.009

27.

Schoonenboom

(2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers & Education, 71, 247-256. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.016

28.

Schreier

(2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London, UK: Sage.

29.

Shaffer

D. W.

Serlin

R. C.

(2004). What good are statistics that don’t generalize? Educational Researcher, 33(9), 14-25. doi:10.3102/0013189x033009014

30.

Stanford

(2009). Underdetermination of scientific theory. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/scientific-underdetermination/

31.

Teddlie

C. B.

Tashakkori

(2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 1-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Thompson

R. L.

Higgins

C. A.

Howell

J. M.

(1994). Influence of experience on personal computer utilization: Testing a conceptual model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 167-187.

33.

Torrance

(2012). Triangulation, respondent validation, and democratic participation in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 111-123. doi:10.1177/1558689812437185

34.

Venkatesh

Bala

(2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273-315. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

35.

Venkatesh

Davis

F. D.

(2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

36.

Willis

G. B.

(2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Yanchar

S. C.

Williams

D. D.

(2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3-12. doi:10.3102/0013189x 035009003

38.

Yousafzai

S. Y.

Foxall

G. R.

Pallister

J. G.

(2007a). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 251-280. doi:10.1108/17465660710834453

39.

Yousafzai

S. Y.

Foxall

G. R.

Pallister

J. G.

(2007b). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 2. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 281-304. doi: 10.1108/17465660710834462