IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v56y2025i5p477-498.html

An Empirical Experiment of the Theory of Change Game: What Difference Does It Make?

Author

Listed:
  • Catarina Isidoro
  • Helena Guimarães

Abstract

Introduction The Theory of Change (ToC) is a recognized approach in transdisciplinarity to facilitate transformative learning processes. When coupled with a Serious Games (SGs) structure, effective tools for navigating sustainability transitions can be develop. This can be the case for the Theory of Change Game (ToCG) that we use in a particular real-word context. Intervention This study aimed to track the impact of ToCG versus other tools. A workshop was designed with 23 participants to plan the future of Tertúlias do Montado, a long-term initiative focused on the sustainability of the Montado silvo-pastoral system. Method In this experimental setup, participants alternated between the ToCG and two other tools. Discussion content and participant preferences were analyzed, allowing for a comparison between ToCG-based tools and those without ToCG principles. Results Results indicate that the ToCG facilitated an in-depth discussion where the societal problem of Montado’s decline, and the initiative’s primary goal were discussed. In the remaining tools these aspects were taken from granted without reflective examination. Additionally, the circular structure of the ToCG encouraged comprehensive discourse, steering participants away from simplistic or immediate solutions to complex problems. All tools received positive evaluations while the ToCG was particularly noted for introducing a novel concept and enabling visual exploration of diverse perspectives. Some participants, however, found its rules ambiguous and noted monotony after multiple rounds. To the best of our knowledge, this experimental design is new as well as its application in a real-world context. Discussion and Conclusion The distinctiveness of ToCG was evident in the quality of discussions and the resources required for its implementation, especially facilitator training. In contrast, the other tools required minimal preparation and could be applied without specialized facilitation. Therefore, ToCG is particularly valuable in contexts where deep reflection is essential, whereas simpler tools may sufficient in more operational settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Catarina Isidoro & Helena Guimarães, 2025. "An Empirical Experiment of the Theory of Change Game: What Difference Does It Make?," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 56(5), pages 477-498, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:56:y:2025:i:5:p:477-498
    DOI: 10.1177/10468781251339715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10468781251339715
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10468781251339715?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    2. Christophe Le Page & Anne Dray & Pascal Perez & Claude Garcia, 2016. "Exploring How Knowledge and Communication Influence Natural Resources Management With ReHab," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 47(2), pages 257-284, April.
    3. Cristina Ampatzidou & Katharina Gugerell & Teodora Constantinescu & Oswald Devisch & Martina Jauschneg & Martin Berger, 2018. "All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 34-46.
    4. Cristina Ampatzidou & Katharina Gugerell & Teodora Constantinescu & Oswald Devisch & Martina Jauschneg & Martin Berger, 2018. "All Work and No Play? Facilitating Serious Games and Gamified Applications in Participatory Urban Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 34-46.
    5. Theresa Tribaldos & Flurina Schneider, 2021. "Enabling Players to Develop Theories of Change for Sustainable Development: A Serious Game," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 52(5), pages 664-678, October.
    6. David Crookall, 2014. "Engaging (in) Gameplay and (in) Debriefing," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 45(4-5), pages 416-427, August.
    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. Katinka Tóbiás & Lajos Boros, 2025. "Participatory Planning and Gamification: Insights from Hungary," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Ali Termos & Neil Yorke-Smith, 2022. "Urbanism and Geographic Crises: A Micro-Simulation Lens on Beirut," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 87-100.
    3. Dernat, Sylvain & Grillot, Myriam & Andreotti, Federico & Martel, Gilles, 2025. "A sustainable game changer? Systematic review of serious games used for agriculture and research agenda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Micael Sousa, 2024. "Moving Pieces and Allocating Budget Together: A Framework for Using Analog Serious Games in Sustainable Collaborative Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-24, September.
    6. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Sylvain, Dernat & Bertrand, Dumont & Dominique, Vollet, 2023. "La Grange®: A generic game to reveal trade-offs and synergies among stakeholders in livestock farming areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    8. Agnieszka Szczepańska & Rafał Kaźmierczak & Monika Myszkowska, 2021. "Virtual Reality as a Tool for Public Consultations in Spatial Planning and Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Agnessa Spanellis & J. Tuomas Harviainen & Daniel Fernández Galeote & Mattia Thibault, 2024. "Gamification for Sustainable Development," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 55(3), pages 361-365, June.
    10. Heikki Tuomenvirta & Hilppa Gregow & Atte Harjanne & Sanna Luhtala & Antti Mäkelä & Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola & Sirkku Juhola & Mikael Hildén & Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio & Ilkka T. Miettinen & Mikko Halonen, 2019. "Identifying Policy Actions Supporting Weather-Related Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Theresa Tribaldos & Flurina Schneider, 2021. "Enabling Players to Develop Theories of Change for Sustainable Development: A Serious Game," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 52(5), pages 664-678, October.
    12. Melissa Robson-Williams & Bruce Small & Roger Robson-Williams & Nick Kirk, 2021. "Handrails through the Swamp? A Pilot to Test the Integration and Implementation Science Framework in Complex Real-World Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Inés Aquilué & Angélica Caicedo & Joan Moreno & Miquel Estrada & Laia Pagès, 2021. "A Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Living Labs on Urban Design: The Case of the Furnish Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-29, April.
    14. Stephanie Jahn & Jens Newig & Daniel J. Lang & Judith Kahle & Matthias Bergmann, 2022. "Demarcating transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—Five clusters of research modes based on evidence from 59 research projects," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 343-357, April.
    15. Robert-Jan Den Haan & Mascha C. Van der Voort, 2018. "On Evaluating Social Learning Outcomes of Serious Games to Collaboratively Address Sustainability Problems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-26, December.
    16. 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," Post-Print hal-05173616, HAL.
    17. Ryan Nehring & Fernando Galeana & Hilary Faxon, 2025. "A critical approach to co‐producing knowledge for development," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 43(5), September.
    18. Gerlak, Andrea K. & Guido, Zack & Owen, Gigi & McGoffin, Mariana Sofia Rodriguez & Louder, Elena & Davies, Julia & Smith, Kelly Jay & Zimmer, Andy & Murveit, Anna M. & Meadow, Alison & Shrestha, Padme, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Mathias Lanezki & Catharina Siemer & Steffen Wehkamp, 2020. "“Changing the Game—Neighbourhood”: An Energy Transition Board Game, Developed in a Co-Design Process: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Oskar Marg & Lena Theiler, 2024. "Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 635-647.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:simgam:v:56:y:2025:i:5:p:477-498. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.