ABSTRACT
The paper contends that a vital aspect of the evaluation of mental health promotion concerns the way in which ‘mental health’ is being conceptualised and operationalised in the intervention. Further, just as there are different and competing ‘theories of the problem’ of mental health promotion, then also, there are differences in how mental health promotion can or should be researched or evaluated. These differences are not merely of opinion or point of view but emerge from different assumptions about the nature of knowledge, how it is generated and how it can be investigated. Drawing on work from Labonte and Robertson (1996), the paper explores the details and assumptions of two competing epistemologies — the positivist and the social constructionist - which are seen as driving both research and practice. Included in this analysis are a number of research issues such as the acceptability of single or multiple accounts of reality and the purpose of the research. Questions are also raised about the assumed value or status of research from the two competing traditions. In particular, the belief that the method of evaluation somehow adds credibility to the practice or intervention being evaluated is challenged. Finally, issues about acknowledging various stages of intervention evaluation are explored with special reference to a conceptual distinction between impact and outcome. Some implications for how mental health promotion can be evaluated or researched are identified.
