The evolution of the logic model January 13, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Communicating outcomes models, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Using the approach, Standards, Outcomes models, DoView , trackbackI’ve just posted an article on the evolution of the logic model within evaluation. Over the last couple of decades, increasing numbers of evaluators have started using logic models. For those not familiar with what logic models are - they are simply tabular or visual representations of all of the lower-level steps needed to achieve high-level outcomes for a program, organization or other intervention. They go by different names, for instance: program logics, intervention logics, results maps, theories of change, program theories, results hierarchies, strategy maps, end-means diagrams etc.). A traditional way of drawing logic models has evolved (known as the inputs, outputs, intermediate outcomes, final outcomes structured logic model) which often attempts to restrict logic models to a single page. However, many evaluators are now breaking away from the constraints of this traditional format and exploring various alternative ways of representing logic models.
The article argues that if we want to work out how evaluators should draw logic models, then we need to define the purposes for which we want to use logic models before we can do so. It discusses the wide range of ways in which logic models can be used and refers to a set of conventions for drawing logic models which have been developed to develop logic models (alternatively termed outcomes models) which are fit-for-purpose for this variety of uses. From these conventions a set of practical standards has been developed, one page tip sheets incorporating these standards, and other resources for drawing such models. This article is, in part, based on a presentation I did at the recent American Evaluation Association Conference (Rejecting the traditional outputs, intermediate and final outcomes logic modeling approach and building more stakeholder-friendly visual outcomes models. American Evaluation Association Conference 2009, Orlando, Florida, 11-14 November 2009. Abstract http://www.eval.org/search09/session.asp?sessionid=7424&presenterid=630).
Check out the article and if you have any comments, put them at the bottom of it:
Duignan, P. (2009). The evolution of logic models (theories of change) as used within evaluation. (http://knol.google.com/k/paul-duignan-phd/the-evaluation-of-the-use-of-logic/2m7zd68aaz774/135).
Paul Duignan, PhD. (Follow me on my Outcomes Blog; Twitter; or via my E-Newsletter).
Comments»
Hi Paul,
While there is considerable emphasis on the inputs/processes/outputs/outcomes/impacts version of logic models in some sources (eg the United Way guide, the Kellogg guide, and the logframe), the history of using a hierarchy of results goes back a long way - at least to Weiss in 1972 (check out her logic model of teacher home visits).
Patricia Rogers
CIRCLE at RMIT University
Patricia.Rogers@rmit.edu.au
Thanks Patricia for pointing that out, I should have said that the inputs/process/outputs/outcomes/impacts version of the models is often seen as the dominant form in the sense that if you look at most of the publications around that people refer to, they just launch into that model as though it is the way that logic models are drawn. It would be great to go into in detail the history of the different forms. Are you going to have any room to do something like that in the book that you are working one?
Paul Duignan
Hi Paul,
I am currently working in local public health in Whatcom County, Washington (we share a border with British Columbia) and are a “pass through” county for the upcoming Winter Olympics in Vancouver.
I had the privilege to participate in your DoView demonstration and can’t tell you how excited I am to apply this amazing modeling software here at our local health jurisdiction. As an evaluator who is fanatically dovoted to the art of visual display, I so appreciate your work and hope to build on it locally.
THANKS!