IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/eurjdr/v35y2023i2d10.1057_s41287-023-00574-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Theory of Change in Complex Research for Development Programmes: Challenges and Solutions from the Global Challenges Research Fund

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Chapman

    (University of Cape Town)

  • Adiilah Boodhoo

    (University of Cape Town)

  • Carren Duffy

    (University of Cape Town)

  • Suki Goodman

    (University of Cape Town)

  • Maria Michalopoulou

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

The United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) aimed to address global challenges to achieve the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals through 12 interdisciplinary research hubs. This research documents key lessons learned around working with Theory of Change (ToC) to guide Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) within these complex research for development hubs. Interviews and document reviews were conducted in ten of the research hubs. The results revealed that only one hub invested in an explicit visual system mapping approach, and that funder timelines, budget constraints and issues with capacity and expertise limited the application of these approaches across all hubs. In contrast, many hubs attempted to deal with visual complexity by means of ether constructing multiple, nested ToCs, or a conscious simplification of complexity through reducing their ToC towards a straightforward and uncomplicated chain model or spherical model. While the former approach had some value, most hubs struggled to find capacity to support the full articulation of nested ToCs. In contrast, the latter approach resulted in ToCs which lacked detail or mechanism articulation, but which nevertheless were often ‘fit for purpose’ in ensuring effective communication and coherence across diverse stakeholders and sub-projects. We conclude that in instances where the reporting, funding and management cycles of complex research for development programmes cannot be adapted to properly support learning-based approaches to ToC development, imposing simplicity in the ToC might be fit for purpose. This might also be preferable to more complex visual approaches that are only partially realised.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Chapman & Adiilah Boodhoo & Carren Duffy & Suki Goodman & Maria Michalopoulou, 2023. "Theory of Change in Complex Research for Development Programmes: Challenges and Solutions from the Global Challenges Research Fund," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 298-322, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:35:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-023-00574-0
    DOI: 10.1057/s41287-023-00574-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41287-023-00574-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41287-023-00574-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rick Davies, 2018. "Representing theories of change: technical challenges with evaluation consequences," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 438-461, October.
    2. Dyehouse, Melissa & Bennett, Deborah & Harbor, Jon & Childress, Amy & Dark, Melissa, 2009. "A comparison of linear and systems thinking approaches for program evaluation illustrated using the Indiana Interdisciplinary GK-12," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 187-196, August.
    3. repec:mpr:mprres:7320 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Douthwaite, Boru & Kuby, Thomas & van de Fliert, Elske & Schulz, Steffen, 2003. "Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 243-265, November.
    5. Thornton, PK & Schuetz, T & Förch, W & Cramer, L & Abreu, D & Vermeulen, S & Campbell, BM, 2017. "Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 145-153.
    6. Walton, Mat, 2014. "Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 119-126.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    2. Maru, Yiheyis Taddele & Sparrow, Ashley & Butler, James R.A. & Banerjee, Onil & Ison, Ray & Hall, Andy & Carberry, Peter, 2018. "Towards appropriate mainstreaming of “Theory of Change” approaches into agricultural research for development: Challenges and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 344-353.
    3. Faure, Guy & Barret, Danielle & Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Dabat, Marie-Hélène & Devaux-Spatarakis, Agathe & Le Guerroué, Jean Louis & Marquié, Catherine & Mathé, Syndhia & Temple, Ludovic & Toillier, A, 2018. "How different agricultural research models contribute to impacts: Evidence from 13 case studies in developing countries," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 128-136.
    4. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.
    5. Hoffecker, Elizabeth, 2021. "Understanding inclusive innovation processes in agricultural systems: A middle-range conceptual model," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    6. Marina Apgar & Mieke Snijder & Grace Lyn Higdon & Sylvia Szabo, 2023. "Evaluating Research for Development: Innovation to Navigate Complexity," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 241-259, April.
    7. Lam, Steven & Dodd, Warren & Wyngaarden, Sara & Skinner, Kelly & Papadopoulos, Andrew & Harper, Sherilee L., 2021. "How and why are Theory of Change and Realist Evaluation used in food security contexts? A scoping review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. McGill, Elizabeth & Er, Vanessa & Penney, Tarra & Egan, Matt & White, Martin & Meier, Petra & Whitehead, Margaret & Lock, Karen & Anderson de Cuevas, Rachel & Smith, Richard & Savona, Natalie & Rutter, 2021. "Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    9. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    10. Goswami, Rupak & Paul, Malay, 2011. "Using Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for assessing the impact of Extension programmes: An empirical study in the context of Joint Forest Management," MPRA Paper 37793, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Tina D. Beuchelt & Rafaël Schneider & Liliana Gamba, 2022. "Integrating the right to food in sustainability standards: A theory of change to move global supply chains from responsibilities to impacts," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1864-1889, December.
    12. Marina Apgar & Guillaume Fournie & Barbara Haesler & Grace Lyn Higdon & Leah Kenny & Annalena Oppel & Evelyn Pauls & Matthew Smith & Mieke Snijder & Daan Vink & Mazeda Hossain, 2023. "Revealing the Relational Mechanisms of Research for Development Through Social Network Analysis," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 323-350, April.
    13. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    14. Anna Matheson, 2020. "Health Inequality as a Large-Scale Outcome of Complex Social Systems: Lessons for Action on the Sustainable Development Goals," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-11, April.
    15. van Noordwijk, Meine, 2019. "Integrated natural resource management as pathway to poverty reduction: Innovating practices, institutions and policies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 60-71.
    16. Maria J. Restrepo & Margareta A. Lelea & Brigitte Kaufmann, 2016. "Second-Order Cybernetic Analysis to Re-construct Farmers’ Rationale When Regulating Milk Production," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 449-468, October.
    17. Thornton, PK & Schuetz, T & Förch, W & Cramer, L & Abreu, D & Vermeulen, S & Campbell, BM, 2017. "Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 145-153.
    18. Matt, M. & Colinet, L. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P.B., 2015. "A typology of impact pathways generated by a public agricultural research organization," Working Papers 2015-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    19. Kilcline, Kevin & Dhubháin, Áine Ní & Heanue, Kevin & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary, 2021. "Addressing the challenge of wood mobilisation through a systemic innovation lens: The Irish forest sector innovation system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    20. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:eurjdr:v:35:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1057_s41287-023-00574-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.