A critical realist critique on evidence conceptions in occupational mental health research

Abstract

The increasingly dynamic nature of modern workplaces and the growing complexity of factors influencing mental health challenge conventional understandings of evidence in occupational health research. Drawing on critical realism (CR) as a contemporary philosophy of science, this article examines limitations of narrow conceptions of evidence that continue to shape intervention research at the intersection of work and mental health. Using an abductive approach, we develop a CR-lens for examining how evidence conceptions might be generated and interpreted in occupational mental health research. Three interrelated themes guide the analysis: (1) understanding change in the flux of events, (2) considering emergent forces operating within open systems, and (3) critically reflecting on the risk of epistemic fallacies. Building on these themes, we identify limitations of approaches that prioritize decontextualized outcome measures and isolated causal relationships. We further discuss how a broader understanding of evidence could inform research on workplace mental health interventions. Rather than rejecting evidence-based approaches, the article argues for complementing them with greater attention to context, mechanisms, and emergence. Finally, implications are outlined for occupational mental health research, including the value of interdisciplinary inquiry, methodological pluralism, and more context-sensitive approaches to intervention evaluation and implementation.