The uncritical realism of realist evaluation

This article is a response to Ray Pawson’s critique of critical realism, the philosophy of science elaborated by Roy Bhaskar. I argue with Pawson’s interpretation of critical realism’s positions on both natural and social science and his charges concerning its totalizing ontology, its arrogant epistemology and its naive methodology. The differences between critical realism and realist evaluation are not as significant as Pawson contends. The main differences between the two realisms lie in their approaches to the relationship between social structures and human agency, and between facts and values. I argue that evaluation scientists need to clearly distinguish structure and agency. They should also make their values explicit. The uncritical approach of realist evaluation, combined with its underplaying of the importance of agency, leaves it open to implication in the abuses of bureaucratic instrumentalism.

Resilience

Over the past decade the concept of ‘resilience’ has been mobilised across an increasingly wide range of policy arenas. For example, it has featured prominently within recent discussions on the nature of warfare, the purpose of urban and regional planning, the effectiveness of development policies, the intent of welfare reform and the stability of the international financial system. The term’s origins can be traced back to the work of the ecologist Crawford S. Holling and his formulation of a science of complexity. This paper reflects on the origins of these ideas and their travels from the field of natural resource management, which it now dominates, to contemporary social practices and policy arenas. It reflects on the ways in which a lexicon of complex adaptive systems, grounded in an epistemology of limited knowledge and uncertain futures, seeks to displace ongoing ‘dependence’ on professionals by valorising self-reliance and responsibility as techniques to be applied by subjects in the making of the resilient self. In so doing, resilience is being mobilised to govern a wide range of threats and sources of uncertainty, from climate change, financial crises and terrorism, to the sustainability of development, the financing of welfare and providing for an aging population. As such, ‘resilience’ risks becoming a measure of its subjects’ ‘fitness’ to survive in what are pre-figured as natural, turbulent orders of things.