Constructing Theories of Change: Methods and Sources
Abstract
`Theories of Change' has proved a popular approach for both evaluators and commissioners of complex social programmes, but the ways in which theories of change (ToC) evaluations have been implemented show considerable variation. This article draws on the ongoing work of the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund (NECF) and argues that the literature which discusses the ToC approach has neglected the process by which theories of change are constructed by stakeholders (and the implications of this for evaluation), while consistently describing such theories as `underdeveloped'. The authors argue that programme theory evaluations have relied on a process that emphasizes the importance of obtaining clarity at the outset, but that the detail of such theories and their implementation can only be obtained over time. An alternative approach is outlined, which the authors argue allows for a better understanding of programme theory, and hence knowledge and learning, to emerge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Theory of Change approach fosters a deeper understanding of how various methods contribute to positive transformation rather than merely seeking evidence of what works.
“This approach fosters a deeper understanding of how various methods contribute to positive transformation rather than merely seeking evidence of what works (Mason & Barnes, 2007).”
From Data-Driven Decision-Making through Real-time Student Progress Monitoring: Academic Administrators Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as Mason & Barnes, 2007
Cites
Evidence, Understanding and Complexity: Evaluation in Non-Linear Systems
Barnes, M., Matka, E., & Sullivan, H. (2003) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/13563890030093003 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
De Silva, M. J., Breuer, E., Lee, L., Asher, L., Chowdhary, N., Lund, C., & Patel, V. (2014) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-267 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Marchal, B., van Belle, S., van Olmen, J., Hoerée, T., & Kegels, G. (2012) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389012442444 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
Foy, R., Ovretveit, J., Shekelle, P. G., Pronovost, P. J., Taylor, S. L., Dy, S., Hempel, S., McDonald, K. M., Rubenstein, L. V., & Wachter, R. M. (2011) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.047993 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Breuer, E., De Silva, M. J., Shidaye, R., Petersen, I., Nakku, J., Jordans, M. J. D., Fekadu, A., & Lund, C. (2016) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.114.153841 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Breuer, E., De Silva, M. J., Fekadu, A., Luitel, N. P., Murhar, V., Nakku, J., Petersen, I., & Lund, C. (2014) · International Journal of Mental Health Systems · doi:10.1186/1752-4458-8-15 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Secreto, P. V., Ofrin, D., & Tabo, E. (2025) · International Journal in Information Technology in Governance, Education and Business · doi:10.32664/ijitgeb.v7i1.147 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mason, P., & Barnes, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- University of Brighton (GB)
- Venue
- Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 151-170
- ISSN
- 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7153
- OpenAlex
- W2063527664
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 6.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- theory of change, program theory, evaluation design, stakeholder engagement, knowledge and learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
