Theories of Change: Making Value Explicit
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: This article addresses two problems. The first is the Flexibility Problem: If we are to use a more flexible format for theories of change than for traditional logic models, one in which we can no longer assume that we only value things which are at the end of causal chains, nor that we intervene on all the things at the beginning of causal chains, how then can we show which things we value, and which things we intervene on? The second is the Definition Problem: What is the difference between a theory showing the causal influences within and around a project and, more specifically, a theory of change for the project?
Purpose: To solve the Flexibility Problem and the Definition Problem.
Setting: N/A
Intervention: N/A
Research Design: N/A
Data Collection and Analysis: N/A
Findings: A definition of “Theory of Change” is introduced, based upon a definition of “Theory” together with two symbols to mark variables we value (“♥”, or any suitable alternative symbol) and variables we intervene on (“▶”, or any suitable alternative symbol). These two definitions and the two symbols together answer both the Flexibility Problem and the Definition Problem, and have some interesting side-effects as follows. Firstly, they suggest that it is the task of evaluators to model how stakeholders value aspects of a project just as much as it is to model the causal chains within a project. Secondly, evaluators are able to model the fact that stakeholders may value variables which are not at the end of a causal chain, throwing a new light on the debate between results-based and principles-based programming. Thirdly, they provide a way to understand the behaviour of stakeholders and stakeholder groups in terms of their own theories of change – the way they view the world and how they can get what they want – rather than from the traditional behaviourist perspective more familiar to most evaluators
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
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, A. A. (2005). The community builder's approach to theory of change. The Aspen Institute.
Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation. Evaluation, 13(4), 439-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007082129 https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007082129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007082129
Chambers, R., & Pettit, J. (2004). Logframe: A critique. https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/simonhearn_en_Logframe_A_Critique_199-1.pdf
Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Sage.
Chen, H.-T., & Rossi, P. H. (1980). The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science. Social Forces, 59(1), 106-122. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577835 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2577835
Coleman, G. (1987). Logical framework approach to the monitoring and evaluation of agricultural and rural development projects. Project Appraisal, 2(4), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688867.1987.9726638 https://doi.org/10.1080/02688867.1987.9726638 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02688867.1987.9726638
Davidson, E. J. (2015). Question-driven methods or method-driven questions? How we limit what we learn by limiting what we ask. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 11(24), i-x. http://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/414/394 https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v11i24.414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v11i24.414
Davies, R. (2004). Scale, complexity and the representation of theories of change. Evaluation, 10(1), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389004043124 https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389004043124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389004043124
Department for International Development. (2011). Guidance on using the revised Logical Framework (DFID practice paper). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253881/using-revised-logical-framework-external.pdf
Dhillon, L., & Vaca, S. (2018). Refining theories of change. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 14(30), 64-87. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v14i30.496 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v14i30.496
Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801467493 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801467493
Earl, S., Carden, F., & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs. International Development Research Centre. https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/outcome-mapping-building-learning-and-reflection-development-programs
Earle, L. (2002). Lost in the matrix: The Logframe and the local picture. Paper for INTRAC's 5th Evaluation Conference. http://pdf2.hegoa.efaber.net/entry/content/907/Lost_in_the_Matrix.pdf
Guijt, I. (2008). Critical readings on assessing and learning for social change: A review. www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop
Hansen, M. B., & Vedung, E. (2010). Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 295-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366174 https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366174
Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199662548.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199662548.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780199662548.001.0001
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (1994). Code of conduct. https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/who-we-are/the-movement/code-of-conduct/
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
King, J., McKegg, K., Oakden, J., & Wehipeihana, N. (2013). Rubrics: A method for surfacing values and improving the credibility of evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 9(21), 11-20. http://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/viewFile/374/373 https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v9i21.374 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v9i21.374
Kusek, J. Z., & Rist, R. C. (2004). Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system: A handbook for development practitioners. World Bank Publications.
Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(17), 556-567. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025310 https://doi.org/10.2307/2025310 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2025310
Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Blackwell.
Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(2), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.230 https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.230 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.230
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(42), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Sage.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. Hachette Book Group.
Powell, S. (2018). The book of why: The science of cause and effect. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 14(31), 47-54. http://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/507/453 https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v14i31.507 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v14i31.507
Powell, S. (2017, December). Visualizing theories of change: How not to confuse causes and definitions. EVal. https://www.elval.org/en/vizualizaciji-teorije-promjene-kako-razlikovati-uzroke-i-definicije/
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39-83). Rand McNally.
Scriven, M. (1981). Evaluation thesaurus (3rd ed.). Edgepress.
Scriven, M. (2012). The logic of valuing. New Directions for Evaluation, (133), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20003 https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20003
Shaw, I., & Crompton, A. (2003). Theory, like mist on spectacles, obscures vision. Evaluation, 9(2), 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003090020005 https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003009002005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003009002005
Vaca, S., & Vidueira, P. (2016). Using graphical perception principles to improve the systems thinking tools' data visualization: Revisiting the systems dynamics model. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 12(26), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v12i26.441 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v12i26.441
Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of "Theory of Change" in international development: Review report. Department for International Development. www.isabelvogel.co.uk
Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell (Ed.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65-92). Aspen Institute. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003094007 https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003094007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389003094007
Wittgenstein, L. (1978). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.