Applying a realist evaluation to an intervention in children’s social care: A worked example from the Safeguarding Family Group Conference study

B. Douglas Bernheim et al.

Evaluation2025https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890241309643article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.41

Abstract

Children’s social care researchers are increasingly drawing on realist evaluation to understand the complexity within their field by identifying underlying contexts and mechanisms that lead to outcomes of interest. However, there are few published worked examples of realist evaluations of interventions in children’s social care. This makes it challenging to understand how to put this approach to best use in practice. To address this gap, we share how we conducted a realist evaluation of Safeguarding Family Group Conferencing, a family-led decision-making process. In doing this, we highlight several challenges and opportunities of conducting a realist evaluation in a children’s social care setting. We conclude that realist evaluation is adaptable and generative and benefits from a team-based approach to retroductive theorising and analysis. By outlining our process, we aim to provide a resource for children’s social care researchers wishing to use realist evaluation in the United Kingdom and beyond.

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890241309643

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{b.2025,
  title        = {{Applying a realist evaluation to an intervention in children’s social care: A worked example from the Safeguarding Family Group Conference study}},
  author       = {B. Douglas Bernheim et al.},
  journal      = {Evaluation},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890241309643},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Applying a realist evaluation to an intervention in children’s social care: A worked example from the Safeguarding Family Group Conference study

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.41

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.