Refining Theories of Change
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Despite the disparities in how they are defined and what elements are included, most Theories of Change remain consistent in one way – their visual format. Typically, Theories of Change are presented as a one-page visual in a flowchart style with lines and boxes of uniform size. In addition, Theories of Change are often created as stand-alone tools that are rarely linked effectively to other organizational tools.
Purpose: The authors: (1) propose the essential elements that contribute to robust Theories of Change and clarify the characteristics that distinguish Theories of Change from other organizational tools and formats; (2) suggest additional elements for inclusion in the Theory of Change; (3) present graphic alternatives that allow for an evolution in representing their complexity and depth; and (4) provide ways to link Theories of Change to other organizational tools to increase organizational alignment, efficiency, and, most importantly, impact.
Research Design: NA
Data Collection and Analysis: NA
Setting: NA
Intervention: NA
Findings: NA
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Alkin, M. (2011). Evaluation essentials: From A to Z. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Bamberger, M., Tarsilla, M., & Hesse-Biber, S. (2016). Why so many "rigorous" evaluations fail to identify unintended consequences of development programs: How mixed methods can contribute. Evaluation and Program Planning, 55, 155-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.01.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.01.001
Befani, B. (2012). Models of causality and causal inference. Retrieved from Department for International Development website: http://mande.co.uk/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2012/07/2012-CausalInference
Brown, A (2016). Differences between the theory of change and the logic model. Retrieved from: https://www.annmurraybrown.com/singlepost/2016/03/20/Theory-of-Change-vsTheLogic-Model-Never-Be-Confused-Again
Bugg-Levine, A. & Emerson, J. (2011). Impact investing: Transforming how we make money while making a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00077
Coffey (N.D.). What is theory of action? Retrieved from: http://www.coffey.com/en/ingenuitycoffey/what-is-a-theory-of-action/
Cousins, J.B., & Earl, L.M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397418. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014004397 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1164283
Duignan, P. (2009). What are outcomes models (program logic models)? A topic article within the outcomes theory knowledge base.
Retrieved from : http://www.outcomestheory.org/files/ot224whatareoutcomesmodels.pdf
Fetterman, D., Rodríguez-Campos, L. & Zukoski, A. (2017) Collaborative, participatory, and empowerment evaluation: Stakeholder involvement approaches. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Funnell, S.C. & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Harvard University (2008). Causal patterns → The details → Six causal patterns. Retrieved from: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/smg/Website/UCP/causal/causal_types.html
Hill, T. & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 46-52. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2391/d179adcfa511bf2ff57f1b89a837ffcf4f92.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00095-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00095-7
Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Rogers, P.J. (2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14 (1), 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007084674 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007084674
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weiss, C. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In Connell, J, Kubisch, A, Schorr, L, & Weiss, C. (Eds.). New approaches to evaluating community initiatives (65-92). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Zukoski A, & Luluquisen M. (2002). Participatory evaluation: What is it? Why do it? What are the challenges? Community based public health policy practice, 5,1-6.