|
Theoretical concepts are unambiguous and described in sufficient depth to be useful
|
Description of the programme theory or sufficient information to enable it to be ‘surfaced’
|
Insufficient information to enable the programme theory to be ‘surfaced’
|
|
Relationships between and amongst concepts are clearly articulated
|
Consideration of the context in which the programme took place
|
Limited or no consideration of the context in which the programme took place
|
|
Concepts sufficiently developed and defined to enable understanding without the reader needing to have first-hand experience of an area of practice
|
Discussion of the differences between programme theory (the design and orientation of a programme—what was intended) and implementation (what ‘happened in real life’)
|
Limited or no discussion of the differences between programme theory (the design and orientation of a programme—what was intended) and implementation (what ‘happened in real life’)
|
|
Concepts grounded strongly in a cited body of literature
|
Recognition and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the programme as implemented
|
Limited or no discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the programme as implemented
|
|
Concepts are parsimonious (i.e. provide the simplest, but not over-simplified, explanation)
|
Some attempt to explain anomalous results and findings with reference to context and data
|
No attempt to explain anomalous results and findings with reference to context and data
|
|
-
|
Description of the factors affecting implementation
|
Limited or no description of the factors affecting implementation
|
|
-
|
Typified by
|
Typified by
|
|
Terms—‘model’, ‘process’, or ‘function’
|
Mentioning only an ‘association’ between variables
|
|
Verbs—‘investigate’, ‘describes’, or ‘explains’
|
|
Topics—‘experiences’
|
