TY - JOUR
T1 - Development of a theory of implementation and integration
T2 - Normalization Process Theory
AU - May, Carl R.
AU - Mair, Frances
AU - Finch, Tracy
AU - MacFarlane, Anne
AU - Dowrick, Christopher
AU - Treweek, Shaun
AU - Rapley, Tim
AU - Ballini, Luciana
AU - Ong, Bie Nio
AU - Rogers, Anne
AU - Murray, Elizabeth
AU - Elwyn, Glyn
AU - Légaré, France
AU - Gunn, Jane
AU - Montori, Victor M.
N1 - Funding Information:
Procedural accounts of theory-building risk imposing an artificial order on processes that are highly contingent. Such processes are, in practice, very difficult to map. In this instance, the social relations and processes that have led to the development of NPT are complex, as are the research and policy problems and networks in which they are located. However, we can say that the processes of theoretical development described in this paper were opportunistic and organic in the beginning. However, after a formal Normalization Process Model [7] was developed and presented at seminars and conferences during 2005 and 2006, a multi-disciplinary group of researchers formed around the model and began to refine and develop it – and, most importantly, to apply it to specific research problems. After this group formed, theoretical development was undertaken more deliberately and strategically, with formal meetings in 2007 and 2008. After 2008, development of NPT was support by funding for meetings of a Peer Learning Set from the UK National Institute of Health Research, and by a 'follow-on' grant from the UK Economic and Social Research Council.
Funding Information:
Preparatory work for this paper was made possible by the award of a grant to EM and CRM of National Institutes for Health Research funding for a National School of Primary Care Research Peer Learning Set on the development of NPT. This group met in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 5 and 6 October 2008. Views presented in this paper are those of the authors and not of the UK Department of Health. We thank Dr Emma Fossey (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland), Catherine O'Donnell, Catherine Pope, Anne Kennedy, Stephanie Tooth, and Rob Wilson for their contributions to this meeting.
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - Background. Theories are important tools in the social and natural sciences. The methods by which they are derived are rarely described and discussed. Normalization Process Theory explains how new technologies, ways of acting, and ways of working become routinely embedded in everyday practice, and has applications in the study of implementation processes. This paper describes the process by which it was built. Methods. Between 1998 and 2008, we developed a theory. We derived a set of empirical generalizations from analysis of data collected in qualitative studies of healthcare work and organization. We developed an applied theoretical model through analysis of empirical generalizations. Finally, we built a formal theory through a process of extension and implication analysis of the applied theoretical model. Results. Each phase of theory development showed that the constructs of the theory did not conflict with each other, had explanatory power, and possessed sufficient robustness for formal testing. As the theory developed, its scope expanded from a set of observed regularities in data with procedural explanations, to an applied theoretical model, to a formal middle-range theory. Conclusion. Normalization Process Theory has been developed through procedures that were properly sceptical and critical, and which were opened to review at each stage of development. The theory has been shown to merit formal testing.
AB - Background. Theories are important tools in the social and natural sciences. The methods by which they are derived are rarely described and discussed. Normalization Process Theory explains how new technologies, ways of acting, and ways of working become routinely embedded in everyday practice, and has applications in the study of implementation processes. This paper describes the process by which it was built. Methods. Between 1998 and 2008, we developed a theory. We derived a set of empirical generalizations from analysis of data collected in qualitative studies of healthcare work and organization. We developed an applied theoretical model through analysis of empirical generalizations. Finally, we built a formal theory through a process of extension and implication analysis of the applied theoretical model. Results. Each phase of theory development showed that the constructs of the theory did not conflict with each other, had explanatory power, and possessed sufficient robustness for formal testing. As the theory developed, its scope expanded from a set of observed regularities in data with procedural explanations, to an applied theoretical model, to a formal middle-range theory. Conclusion. Normalization Process Theory has been developed through procedures that were properly sceptical and critical, and which were opened to review at each stage of development. The theory has been shown to merit formal testing.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68049117093&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68049117093&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1748-5908-4-29
DO - 10.1186/1748-5908-4-29
M3 - Article
C2 - 19460163
AN - SCOPUS:68049117093
SN - 1748-5908
VL - 4
JO - Implementation Science
JF - Implementation Science
IS - 1
M1 - 29
ER -