Theory of Change Versus Theory of Action January 15, 2010
Posted by Paul Duignan in : Attribution, Doing evaluation more efficiently, Outcomes theory, Standards, Using the approach , trackbackWhat’s the difference between a Theory of Change and a Theory of Action? I’m just clarifying my thoughts on this issue and how it relates to my work thinking about how we conceptualize outcomes models (logic models) within outcomes theory. In summary, at the moment – apart from a Theory of Action just being an outcomes model drawn at a lower level – I can’t see a major difference. However I’m happy to be contradicted on this and will change my view if there are convincing arguments for making the distinction. My current thinking is as set out below.
In my work I currently believe that there are just models of the way the world works and that we can drill these down to lower and lower levels and that we can map onto them things like indicators and evaluation questions and, importantly for this discussion, the particular focus of different projects. See examples of the types of models I’m involved in drawing at OutcomesModels.org.
However, the Harvard Family Research Project makes a distinction as follows: “A theory of change identifies the process(es) through which a given type of social change is expected to occur. A theory of action maps out a specific pathway in that theory of change, or an organization’s role with respect to achieving that change, based on an assessment of how it can add the most value to the change process.” Ref
So there’s no problem defining different levels of analysis I suppose, for instance that is what is done in the distinction between a strategic plan (high-level) and a business plan (lower-level) within strategic planning. However, what I am interested in is whether there is any actual conceptual difference in the way such models are drawn.
In my practice at the moment anyway, I just simply approach all of the different types of outcomes models which people talk about (logic models, theories of change, theories of action, intervention logics, strategy maps etc) as causal models of the way we would like things to have turned out in the world by the time we finish our intervention. My approach is to only make distinctions if we really need to, otherwise our field of work gets cluttered with all sorts of distinctions (for instance see simplifying drawing logic models with stakeholders as an example of this parsimonious approach). I’m however happy to introduce distinctions if it is essential to make such distinctions.
So in my approach we can define a set of conventions for modeling these things, and develop standards for drawing them and resources for helping people model them in the way they should be modeled as I discussed in my last blog posting on the evolution of logic modeling within the evaluation discipline.
Thinking more about the Theory of Change versus Theory of Action distinction and whether it is essential to make it, the Harvard people say, a Theory of Action maps out ‘a specific pathway in that theory of change, or an organization’s role’.
Probably the way they are doing this in practice is exactly the way I would do it, I haven’t had a chance to look in detail. However, just one point is that in the way in which I work, I simply continue to developed the outcomes model down to lower and lower levels using exactly the same approach – i.e. building it as a general ‘world centric’ (as opposed to ‘program centric’) outcomes models (meaning that it is allowed to contain steps and outcomes which are the focus of more than one project or organization). I then just map onto this the particular focus of particular projects. See this short video here for how you do such mapping and if you have more time look at the end of the two part video in this article on a maternal health project on how the same approach can be used to identify gaps and overlaps when there are a number of projects focusing on similar outcomes.
This means that you don’t get a proliferation of many different ‘Theories of Action’ if you want to call them that – i.e. one for each project which are drawn at too high a level. What do I mean by ‘too high a level’? What I am getting at here gets a little technical but hang in with me - its about the issue of attribution.
At a certain level most (if not all) of the steps which appear in an outcomes model will be attributable to a particular project. By attributable I mean that it will be self-evident that they have been caused by that project (if you want more on attribution look at an article on the features of steps and outcomes in outcomes models).
But as we move up the outcomes model we will usually find that more and more of the steps within the model are not attributable to just one project or factor (e.g. other projects influence them or they are also influenced by external factors). Now I believe that when we are modeling (say for a particular project) it is important that we continue to model all of the steps and outcomes for a particular level within the model – not just the ones which are attributable to a particular project. That being the case it seems to me that at such a level of modeling the Theory of Change and the Theory of Action are exactly the same thing – i.e. a model of the way we would like the world to have turned out if our intervention was successful. (i.e. we just use a common set of standards for drawing the model at any level – such as this 13 Tips one-pager here which summarizes the standards for people actually drawing models). It is just the case that at very low levels within the modeling (if you take modeling to that level) that all of the steps in the model are likely to be ones which are just attributable to a particular project.
So for me currently there is no theoretical distinction which needs to be made between a Theory of Change and a Theory of Action. The only difference is the level to which they are modeled. I’d love to hear any comments on whether my approach here makes sense.
Paul Duignan, PhD. (Follow me on my Outcomes Blog; Twitter; or via my E-Newsletter).
Comments»
I agree. The distinction (especially when labelled in capital letters) is not needed, and will only contribute to further terminological confusion in the field of evaluation
Rick, there are a lot of different terms floating around aren’t there, and then there are the various disciplines and sectors which have different colorations on the different terms. Particularly confusing for people just coming into the field and for those who have little time to get on top of it all.