Putting Theory of Change into Use in Complex Settings

Authors

  • Boru Douthwaite Selkie Consulting Ltd.
  • Farid Ahmad ICIMOD
  • Ghulam-Muhammad Shah ICIMOD

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.43168

Keywords:

accountability, adaptive management, impact pathways, learning, participation, results-based management

Abstract

This paper argues that theory of change can be used to help stakeholders in agricultural research for development projects collectively agree on problems and visions of success. This helps them feel greater ownership for their project, motivation to achieve outcomes, and understanding of how to do so. However, the dynamic is damaged if projects are pushed to be too specific too early about the outcomes for which they are to be held accountable. This is most likely to happen when system response to project intervention is uncertain, as opposed to projects that work with existing pathways and partnerships where the role of research is well established.

References

Alvarez, S., Douthwaite, B., Thiele, G., Mackay, R., Córdoba, D., & Tehelen, K. (2010). Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation. Development in Practice, 20(8), 946 – 958. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2010.513723

Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987(33), 5 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1443

Blundo Canto, G., Barret, D., Faure, G., Hainzelin, E., Monier, C., & Triomphe, B. (2018). ImpresS ex ante: An approach for building ex ante impact pathways. Montpellier, France: CIRAD.

Bradbury, H. (2015). The Sage handbook of action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823 – 830. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096511001429

Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The “Most Significant Change” (MSC) technique: A guide to its use. Davies-Dart [self-published].

Dhillon, L., & Vaca, S. (2018). Refining theories of change. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 14(30), 64 – 87.

Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Cook, S., Davies, R., George, P., Howell, J., … Rubiano, J. (2007). Participatory impact pathways analysis: A practical application of program theory in research-for-development. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 22(2), 127.

Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Keatinge, J. D. H., Mackay, R., Thiele, G., & Watts, J. (2009). Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) and research priority assessment. In D. A. Raitzer & G. W. Norton (Eds.), Prioritizing agricultural research for development: Experiences and lessons (pp. 8 – 24). Wallingford, England: CABI.

Douthwaite, B., Alvarez, S., Thiele, G., & Mackay, R. (2008). Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation. ILAC Brief 17. Retrieved from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/70093

Douthwaite, B., Apgar, J. M., Schwarz, A.-M., Attwood, S., Senaratna Sellamuttu, S., & Clayton, T. (2017). A new professionalism for agricultural research for development. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(3), 238 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1314754

Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., Van De Fliert, E., & Schulz, S. (2003). Impact pathway evaluation: An approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems, 78(2), 243 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-521x(03)00128-8

Ely, A., & Oxley, N. (2014). STEPS centre research: Our approach to impact. STEPS Centre Working Paper 60. Brighton, England: STEPS Centre. Retrieved from https://stepscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/Impact.pdf

Gallagher, R., & Appenzeller, T. (1999). Beyond reductionism. Science, 284(5411), 79. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5411.79

Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0101_4

Horton, D., Rotondo, E., Ybarnegaray, R. P., Hareau, G., Devaux, A., & Thiele, G. (2013). Lapses, infidelities, and creative adaptations: Lessons from evaluation of a participatory market development approach in the Andes. Evaluation and Program Planning, 39, 28 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.03.002. Medline:23619235

ICIMOD. (2017). MTAP-IV medium-term action plan 2018–2022. Kathmandu, Nepal: Author. Retrieved from https://upload.openaid.se/document/thailand/icimod-mtapiv-31-august-2017-final.pdf

Lilja, N., Kristjanson, P., & Watts, J. (2010). Rethinking impact: Understanding the complexity of poverty and change—Overview. Development in Practice, 20(8), 917 – 932. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2010.513721

Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.2.142

Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pawson, R. (2013). The science of evaluation: A realist manifesto. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reason, P., & Torbert, W. (2001). The action turn: Toward a transformational social science. Concepts and Transformation, 6(1), 1 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.6.1.02rea

Renkow, M., & Byerlee, D. (2010). The impacts of CGIAR research: A review of recent evidence. Food Policy, 35(5), 391 – 402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.006

Schiffer, E., & Hauck, J. (2010). Net-map: Collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods, 22(3), 231 – 249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x10374798

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

Shambu Prasad, C., Hall, A., & Laxmi, T. (2006). Engaging scientists through institutional histories. ILAC Brief No. 14. Retrieved from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/70132

Snowden, D. (2010). Naturalizing sensemaking. In K . Mosier & U. Fischer (Eds.), Informed by knowledge: Expert performance in complex situations (pp. 223 – 234). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Stachowiak, S. (2013). Pathways for change: 10 theories to inform advocacy and policy change efforts. Center for Evaluation Innovation. Seattle, WA: ORS Impact.

Stame, N. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389004043135

Stein, D., & Valters, C. (2012). Understanding theory of change in international development. JSRP Paper 1. London, England: Justice and Security Research Programme, International Development Department, London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/56359/

Van Vianen, J., Reed, J., & Sunderland, T. (2015). From global complexity to local reality: Aligning implementation frameworks with Sustainable Development Goals and landscape approaches (Vol. 1). CIFOR Policy Brief No. 1. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of “Theory of Change” in international development. UK Department for International Development (DFID). Retrieved from http://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf

Wholey, J. S. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987(33), 77 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1447

Wilson-Grau, R., & Britt, H. (2012). Outcome harvesting. Cairo, Egypt: Ford Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.Managingforimpact.org/Sites/Default/Files/Resource/Outome_harvesting_brief_final_2012-05-2-1.Pdf

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloads

Published

2020-04-21

How to Cite

Douthwaite, B., Ahmad, F., & Shah, G.-M. (2020). Putting Theory of Change into Use in Complex Settings. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 35(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.43168

Issue

Vol. 35 No. 1 (2020): Spring

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2020 Boru Douthwaite, Farid Ahmad, Ghulam-Muhammad Shah

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors contributing to The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.

Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Most read articles by the same author(s)