The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation: Peas in a Pod or Apples and Oranges?
Abstract
Two proponents of theory-based approaches to evaluation that have found favour in the UK in recent years are Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation. In this article we share our evolving views on the points of connection and digression between the approaches based on our reading of the theory-based evaluation literature and our practice experience. We provide a background to the two approaches that emphasizes the importance of programme context in understanding how complex programmes lead to changes in outcomes.We then explore some of the differences in how `theory' is conceptualized and used within the two approaches and consider how knowledge is generated and cumulated in subtly different ways depending on the approach that is taken. Finally, we offer our thoughts on what this means for evaluators on the ground seeking an appropriate framework for their practice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Realist approaches have a different theoretical basis to ToC and differ in several ways including how they articulate and generate theory, the degree to which stakeholders are involved and the types of knowledge they seek to generate [20].”
From Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review (2015) · cites this paper as [20]
Citations
Cites
Pawson, R. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781849209120 · Cited by 1,791
Chen, H.-T. (1990) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,227
Evaluation : methods for studying programs and policies
Weiss, C. H. (1997) · Cited by 931
Evidence-based policy: the promise of ‘realist synthesis’
Pawson, R. (2002) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/135638902401462448 · Cited by 729
What works?Evidence-based policy and practice in public services
Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Smith, P. C. (2000) · Policy Press eBooks · doi:10.1332/policypress/9781861341914.001.0001 · Cited by 558
Kubisch, J. P. C. A. A. C. (1998) · Cited by 461
Evidence-based Policy: In Search of a Method
Pawson, R. (2002) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1358902002008002512 · Cited by 403
Theory-Based Evaluation and Types of Complexity
Stame, N. (2004) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389004043135 · Cited by 383
Conceptualising successful partnerships
Dowling, B., Powell, M. A., & Glendinning, C. (2004) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00500.x · Cited by 348
Evidence, Understanding and Complexity: Evaluation in Non-Linear Systems
Barnes, M., Matka, E., & Sullivan, H. (2003) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/13563890030093003 · Cited by 208
Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory
Pawson, R. (2003) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389003094007 · Cited by 194
Promoting Social Change: The Experience of Health Action Zones in England
BAULD, L., JUDGE, K., BARNES, M., BENZEVAL, M., MACKENZIE, M., & SULLIVAN, H. (2005) · Journal of Social Policy · doi:10.1017/s0047279405008858 · Cited by 106
Self-citationNothing as Practical as a Good Theory
Andersen, K. H. (2019) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691192956.003.0001 · Cited by 106
Evaluating Public Policy Experiments
Martin, S. J., & Sanderson, I. R. (1999) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/13563899922208977 · Cited by 98
Who Owns the Theory of Change?
Sullivan, H. T., & Stewart, M. (2006) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389006066971 · Cited by 95
Building Collaborative Capacity through `Theories of Change'
Sullivan, H. T., Barnes, M., & Matka, E. (2002) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1358902002008002514 · Cited by 85
Mackenzie, M., & Blamey, A. (2005) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389005055538 · Cited by 85
Self-citationFrom Programme Theory to Constructivism
Dahler‐Larsen, P. (2001) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/13563890122209711 · Cited by 83
Weitzman, B. C., Silver, D., & Dillman, K.-N. (2002) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/109821400202300402 · Cited by 52
Weitzman, B. C., Silver, D., & Dillman, K.-N. (2002) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1016/s1098-2140(02)00236-9 · Cited by 51
Barnes, M., Bauld, L., Benzeval, M., Mackenzie, M., Sullivan, H., & Judge, K. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203358337 · Cited by 48
Self-citationThe Non-profit Sector Meets the Performance-management Movement
Lindgren, L. (2001) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/13563890122209694 · Cited by 43
Review: Promoting Realism in Evaluation
Julnes, G., Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (1998) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/13563899822208743 · Cited by 42
Applying theory-driven evaluation to the British Crime Reduction Programme
Tilley, N. (2004) · Criminal Justice · doi:10.1177/1466802504048465 · Cited by 42
Health Action Zones: Partnerships for Health Equity
Wild, A. (2006) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00634_3.x · Cited by 40
Using theory-based evaluation to build evidence-based health and social care policy and practice
Bonner, L. (2003) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/0958159031000100224 · Cited by 33
Mackenzie, M., Blamey, A., & Hanlon, P. (2006) · Evidence & Policy · doi:10.1332/174426406777068885 · Cited by 9
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Auspos, P., 2004, Building Knowledge about Community Change: Moving beyond Evaluations
- Chen, H.T., 1990, Evaluation
- Connell, J.P., 1995, New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 1, Concepts, Methods and Contexts
- Dowling, B., 2004, Community, 12, 309
- Fulbright-Anderson, K., 1998, New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 2, Theory, Measurement, and Analysis
- Gambone, M., 1998, Challenges of Measurement in Community Change Initiatives
- Mackenzie, M., 2006, Policy, 2, 211
- Pawson, R., 1997, Evaluation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations
Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Manzano, A., Greenhalgh, J., Jagosh, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2016) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1 · Cited by 880
The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation
Manzano, A. (2016) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389016638615 · Cited by 691
Skivington, K., Matthews, L., Simpson, S. A., Craig, P., Baird, J., Blazeby, J. M., Boyd, K., Craig, N. J., French, D., McIntosh, E., et al. (2021) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta25570 · Cited by 585
Marchal, B., van Belle, S., van Olmen, J., Hoerée, T., & Kegels, G. (2012) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389012442444 · Cited by 476
Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review
Breuer, E., Lee, L., De Silva, M., & Lund, C. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0422-6 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M.
- Affiliations
- National Health Service Scotland (GB)
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Venue
- Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 439-455
- ISSN
- 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7153
- OpenAlex
- W2145892273
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 9.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- theory of change, realist evaluation, theory-based evaluation, program outcomes, knowledge production, evaluator practice, evaluation framework
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
