With the current interest in TOC, I think it is interesting to look/try harder to find the balance between TOC or evaluative thinking and what you call the ‘practical types’. From my perspective, they don’t have to be different – it is more like a meeting in the middle. Some would argue that it is practical to think about how change will be triggered before starting the ‘doing’. Additionally, the ‘practical types’ can contribute to the development of theories (i.e. grounded theories) and therefore further enhance critical thinking.

My practical question would be whether there’s a real process for, and openness to, review by peers and partners. If only the program designer and maybe a supervisor review it until year 5, it will be a check-the-box exercise. But how to usefully get feedback on what it makes explicit, especially as most of these, for donors, will link directly to subsequent competitive procurements and so subject to restrictions on fair access?

You raise some really interesting points from the paper and the DFID seminar. Some of the points in your blog which match findings we had through CARE International’s work with theories of change.

CARE has used theories of change in its strategy and programme design for many years now. We have identified the following seven components of a theory of change to develop a programme:
1. A statement of the current situation and major underlying causes affecting the program impact group
2. A desired long-term goal
3. Domains of change and main stakeholders
4. Pathways of change, which include breakthroughs and incremental changes
5. Stakeholders
6. Indicators
7. Assumptions

For more detail on these and how CARE International uses it in its design, visit: http://p-shift.care2share.wikispaces.net/Theory+of+Change+Guidance

CARE International UK has just completed an EC funded project on design, monitoring and evaluation of programming for peacebuilding and conflict prevention entitled “Strengthening Capacity to Design, Monitor and Evaluate Peacebuilding Programming”.

Through the project, three research teams in Uganda, Nepal and the Democratic Republic of the Congo were established and piloted methods of using theories of change in DME for peacebuilding.

Highlights from the findings include:
• Determining the appropriate actors to work with, and not just the easy-to-reach, enables better programme focus;
• More explicit links need to be made between local level activities and national peace processes for desired changes to occur;
• Conflict analysis is critical for determining the relevance of activities but is rarely done;
• Staff often require support in ensuring their theories of change are sufficiently explicit;
• Current project planning tools do not help practitioners articulate their theories of change;
• Gathering evidence to validate a theory of change is challenging, particularly in conditions of conflict and fragility;
• Critical review of theories of change needs to be undertaken in conjunction with other forms of evaluation to have maximum value;
• Theories of change can encourage an overly linear approach, when change in conflict contexts can be more organic or systemic.

Although this project focused on peacebuilding, many of the approaches and lessons could be applied to development projects more widely.

To read the Peacebuilding with Impact report and its findings, follow here: http://www.careinternational.org.uk/research-centre/conflict-and-peacebuilding/155-peacbuilding-with-impact-defining-theories-of-change

Finally, CARE International UK will publish Guidance for Designing, Monitoring and Evaluating Peacebuilding Projects: Using Theories of Change at the end of May. Again, this tool was developed from peacebuilding experience, but its application is wider.

Any recommendations on a good ToC guide? I recently read Hivos’ ‘De-mystifying a theory of change’ which I really enjoyed but would like to check out some more to get an idea of what other approaches are out there?

Also, are you familiar with Caren Levy’s Web of Institutionalisation? Not sure if it would be specifically classified as a ‘theory of change’ but I think it’s one of the best development frameworks out there for analysing how to approach sustainable change in a given context (I wrote my Msc dissertation looking at how the framework could be applied to voice and accountability programmes / the active citizens and effective states dynamic that you write about in your book)

My only quibble is with your call to separate the communities of theorizing from the communities of practice. What happened to the good old dialectic? — where theory is informed by empirical experience and evidence, and practice is challenged by sharp questions and rigorous thinking? Surely both communities are better off together than alone.

First, risk goes with reward. Bigger risk of failure also means bigger achievements when things work.

Second, a donor that won’t accept failure will not find it easy to encourage full and honest reporting and reflection on the part of implementing agencies.