Learning for doing and doing for learning in early intervention
programmes
Projects where systematic evaluation is conducted frequently begin
in consensus and hope but end in conflict and tears. Misunderstandings
between researchers, policy-makers and practitioners are commonplace.
Conflicts often ensue. Researchers find less that they would like.
Policy-makers are disappointed with results. Practitioners are
frustrated at their incapacity to meet the needs of those they serve.
Even where demonstration projects succeed to the satisfaction of all,
replicating achievements has been highly problematic. Different
methodologies imply different relationships between action, policy,
research, and replication. This paper will present some models,
suggesting why a realist programme development methodology for early
intervention programmes has some important advantages, even though
clearly failing to foreclose all sources of difficulty.
