An Introduction to Evaluation. Chris Fox
However, and from its origins, TOC has been defined and redefined by various authors and in many cases ‘theory of change’ tends to be used interchangeably with other concepts or described approaches, particularly programme theory. And yet there is an important albeit rather subtle distinction between the two: programme theory can be seen as preceding and then evolving and expanding into TOC, which is more relational and holistic.
Programme theory and the theory of change
According to Rogers et al. (2000: 7–8):
[A]t its simplest, a program theory shows a single intermediate outcome by which the program achieves its ultimate outcome … More complex program theories show a series of intermediate outcomes, sometimes in multiple strands that combine to cause the ultimate outcomes. (Rogers et al. 2000: 7–8)
In turn, Wholey states that programme theory identifies ‘program resources, program activities, and intended program outcomes, and specifies a chain of causal assumptions linking program resources, activities, intermediate outcomes, and ultimate goals’(1987: 78).
Programme theory therefore emerged from a need to better understand programmes’ rationale and, more importantly, the chain of causality that led to its outcome(s). The assumption here is that there is a logic that leads to the achievement(s) and that understanding this logic is paramount to understanding the success and failure of a programme.
There is, nevertheless, a rigidity to programme theory that does not account for the role all actors/stakeholders also play in shaping the success or failure of a programme (Rogers et al. 2000) and to an extent downplays the influence of context. Instead it posits the programme as having its own inner logic undisturbed by any other external factors. Yet, and as Virtanen and Uusikylä put it, ‘traditional cause-and-effect logic disregards the fact that programme effects are always brought about by real actors rather than constructed ideal actors’ (2002: 9). The inward logic of programme theory misses the complexity of the multiple exogenous influences that the theory of change tries to capture by formulating the theory – not of the programme but of the desired change or changes.
First articulated as an evaluation tool, the TOC developed into an approach to programme planning and a tool for evaluation. Planning-wise, the TOC consists of stating the desired (long-term) change based on a number of assumptions that hypothesise, project or calculate how change can be enabled. More specifically it requires thinking through:
the context for the initiative, including the social, political and environmental conditions, the current state of the problem the project is seeking to influence, and other actors able to influence change
the long-term change that the initiative seeks to support and for whose ultimate benefit
the process/sequence of change anticipated to lead to the desired long-term outcome
assumptions about how these changes might happen, as a check on whether the activities and outputs are appropriate for influencing change in the desired direction in this context (Vogel 2012: 4)
The assumptions therefore determine the strategies (activities) that can be used to achieve the change(s) and set out the pathway(s) that will need to be followed in order for that change to be achieved. Assumptions are indeed crucial:
The central idea in theory of change thinking is making assumptions explicit. Assumptions act as ‘rules of thumb’ that influence our choices, as individuals and organisations. Assumptions reflect deeply held values, norms and ideological perspectives. These inform the design and implementation of programmes. Making assumptions explicit, especially seemingly obvious ones, allows them to be checked, debated and enriched to strengthen programmes. (Vogel 2012: 4)
Finally, the TOC is fundamentally participatory in its process of development, including a variety of stakeholders and therefore perceptions. The process of developing a TOC ‘should be based on a variety of forms of rigorous evidence, including local knowledge and experience, past programming material and social science theory … Designated as an iterative process, ToC is intended to be an evolving tool, and a set of theories relevant to a specific setting, that is articulated, tested, and improved over time’ (Stein and Valters 2012: 13).
Main characteristics of theories of change
In a DFID review of the use of theory of change (Vogel 2012) in international development, the characteristics of the theory of change are defined from the programme side, i.e. in this review Vogel distilled the main common characteristics that programmes with theory of changes have in common. These are as follows:
Logical thinking and critical reflection Theory of change implies mapping the logical sequence that can lead to the desired change(s). This requires critical thinking regarding the context, the intervention, the stakeholders, the targets, and all the other actors and elements that co-relate, interact and play a role in the achievement of the change(s).
Flexibility and openness As an approach, theory of change is not prescriptive when it comes to methods of induction to arrive at an underlying logic and when it comes to assessing the validity of its assumptions. That is, different methods can be used to develop a theory of change, in the same way that theory-based evaluations use whatever methods necessary in order to test assumptions and programmes’ achievement. It’s not about the methods, it’s about the final goal.
Innovation and potential improvement in programmes The characteristics above naturally lead to greater potential for innovation and adaptability to context. As Vogel put it, theory of change ‘[A]s it encourages on-going questioning of what might influence change in the context and drawing on evidence and learning during implementation, theory of change thinking can inspire improvements in programmes, moving beyond technocratic responses towards more realistic and feasible interventions that are responsive to dynamic contexts’ (2012: 4).
Performance management The high level of flexibility and openness also brings uncertainty, which poses considerable challenges for programme management. Performance management approaches are brought in to ‘control’ the levels of uncertainty in TOC informed initiatives.
Overall, programmes with theories of change are challenging because they require ‘a commitment to take a reflective, critical and honest approach to answer difficult questions about how our efforts might influence change, given the political realities, uncertainties and complexities that surround all development initiatives’ (Vogel 2012: 5).
There is not a sole process by which to develop a theory of change. Over the years, many different processes that can arrive at a programmatic TOC have been conceptualised. Broadly these can be grouped in one of the two, or a mix of both processes:
Researcher-led Developing TOCs follows a rigorous research-like process because a few elements that are relevant for the development of a TOC are researched and investigated, e.g. the context. Assumptions may also be formulated more like research hypotheses that can therefore in the future be tested in a more in-depth way.
Stakeholder-led Researchers/programme managers facilitate a process in which stakeholders are central. Stakeholders are provided with the basic information, e.g. of the context but their own perceptions are taken into account. This configures a collective induction exercise whose objective is to generate the collective vision underlying the programme.
Finally, theories of changes may be developed at different points in the life-cycle of a programme. These can be prospective and developed at the initial phase – conceptualisation, planning and design. They can also be retrospective and thus ‘reconstructed’ or pieced together after the programme is fully underway.
Difference between TOC and logical framework approach
For many years, the logical framework approach was used to plan and organise programmes and enable their monitoring and evaluation. It delineates the (straight) path that links a programme’s goals