Theory of change model versus program logic and does it matter?
There is no doubt that these terms are being used interchangeably, but some people do see them as different things.
It seems I have my own personal distinction which doesn’t match the literature (blast!). I have been making a distinction that a program logic model concerns itself with how one specific program will contribute to outcomes - (eg its program centric). It doesn’t necessarily map out how other programs/ stakeholders/issues are contributing to the same outcome. I have been reserving the term ‘Theory of change’, for the situations when you map out a much bigger scenario - more of a whole systems view of what change needs to occur in order to achieve that outcome (outcome centric).
Under this framework a program logic focuses on just one set of pathways in the broader theory of change - depending what that program can uniquely offer that is not already being done. I think Paul Dougan refers to it as ‘global logic’. And its great when you have a complicated program to map this bigger theory of change out first, then decided which bits your program can usefully focus on to leverage maximum contribution to outcomes. Hey I still like my distinction!! Also I guess a theory of change under my distinction is very useful in the planning stages of a program.
Others, (notably the Aspen Institute) seem to be focusing on the theory of change being more about specifying the magnitude of a particular precondition required to achieve an outcome.
www.evaluationtoolsforracialequity.org/…/TOCs_and_Logic_Models_forAEA.ppt
I am not so sure about their distinction, I am sure you could do that with a logic model if you wanted! Also it all sounds very mathematical - but I guess it does come out of this whole evidence based movement. Eg prove how much of this precondition is required to achieve the next condition. I bet this could be done nicely with Basian network software!
I would love to hear about how you define the difference!
k fisher , September 15th, 2010 at 11:49 am
I like the way you make distinctions between the different levels for modelling change. I do think it is a little different though from what I have understood by Theory of Change as it is used in Realist Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley etc). My reading is far from deep but I understood they use Theory of Change to refer not so much to a level of change (ie big picture social change) but to the specification of the causal steps/outcomes necessary for change to take place in a specified context. So they often draw on various social science theories to articulate the hypotheses about how change will come about in a particular context (ie they are not only interested in articulating what the program managers have understood about how the program is supposed to work). This Theory of Change could be local and limited to how empowerment occurs at the level of individual transformation or it could be scaled up to encompass the big picture of multiple development interventions (including perhaps empowerment) that eliminate poverty.
I have understood the important difference, or simply addition, they make to program logic is just that they try to eliminate the ‘black boxes’ of change by specifying one (or more) theories of how change it is expected to happen in a particular context. From this perspectiev evaluation doesn’t just test whether something works but how it works - and so it ideally it could or would then test more than one theory of how a particular change is (or is not) coming about, among which people and contexts.