Reaching-Down Reaching-Up Models of Applied Child and Adolescent Development Research

• In Event: Adolescent–Adult Relationships as Developmental Spaces: Mechanisms Underlying Positive Development for Diverse Youth

Abstract

To maximize the impact of research on programs, I propose a “reaching-down-reaching-up” perspective in evaluation design. A focus on relevant, useful research aimed at enhancing key settings, affords a softening of the dyadic characterization of evaluation versus research. Designing evaluative studies with an eye towards reaching-down-reaching-up requires purposeful consideration of design. One particular reaching-down reaching-up design investigates context, mechanism, outcome (CMO) configurations. This investigation is guided by an integration of researcher and stakeholder theory of what might work for whom in what circumstances. These studies, I argue, can produce a set of findings able to address local stakeholder concerns as well as contribute to disciplinary knowledge—ultimately aligning social scientists and evaluators in ways that maximize the impact of research studies conducted on programs.

A key characteristic of this applied research model is a focus on mechanisms. Pawson and Tilley (1997) define “social mechanisms” in terms of “people’s choices and capacities they derive from group membership” (p. 66). Focusing on social mechanisms zeros in on the question, “What is it about a program or practice which makes it work…Programs work by introducing new ideas and/or resources into existing set of social relationships” (p. 70). Unfortunately, many practicing evaluators mistakenly consider mechanisms and program activities to be one and same (Astbury & Leeuw, 2010; Weiss, 1999). For example, if within a school, it is discovered that mentoring is associated with a reduction in student absenteeism, the cause of the change is often assumed to be the “mentoring.” But the mechanism is not the mentoring. The mechanism introduced by the mentoring activity might be new ideas about peer acceptance and fitting in or new resources related to study skills and managing homework.

Also unfortunate is that many researchers equate mechanisms exclusively with mediating variables. Unlike variables, however, mechanisms are not usually observable attributes of some unit of analysis; rather mechanisms are theories that attempt to explain why variables are related (Astbury & Leeuw, 2010; Pawson & Tilley, 1997). When mechanisms are reduced to variables and determined prior to data collection, the generative possibility of the study is limited.
Each of the papers presented in this symposium suggest relevant context and mechanism theories that could inform a CMO configuration study. Specifying CMO within applied research designs provides program stakeholders critical information about resource allocation (reaching down) and provides researchers understandings about the parameters and durability of existing theory (reaching up).

References

Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363-381.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Weiss, C. H. (1999). Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New Approaches to Evaluating Community-Wide Initiatives Volume 1: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

Author

• Tanner LeBaron Wallace, University of Pittsburgh