In this episode of The Realist Lens, Alejandro is joined by Sebastian Lemire, evaluator and methodological pluralist, to explore one of the most contested questions in contemporary realist inquiry: Is the realist trial a methodological impossibility, or a rare but viable unicorn?Drawing on his extensive experience in theory-based evaluation and a review of published realist trials, Sebastian shares his pragmatic view on the long-standing debate between realist evaluation and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Rather than taking sides in ontological disputes, Sebastian invites listeners to focus on what different forms of evidence can do and how they can be meaningfully integrated.The conversation traces Sebastian’s journey from theory driven evaluation into realist-informed work and unpacks how the debate around realist trials reflects deeper divides about causation, evidence, and credibility in evaluation. Together, Alejandro and Sebastian examine why the topic remains so divisive, what distinguishes the rare “unicorn” realist trials, and how integration can occur at the level of evidence and analysis rather than philosophical purity.This episode does not seek to close the debate. Instead, it keeps the conversation open, offering a thoughtful, empirically grounded perspective on how evaluators might navigate complexity, pragmatism, and explanation without becoming trapped by methodological dogma.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related