Has the Theory of Change established itself as the better alternative to the Logical Framework Approach in development cooperation programmes?

Abstract

This article critically reflects on two development programme planning methodologies: the dominant Logical Framework Approach (LFA) and the Theory of Change (ToC). It reviews their conceptual origins and outlines their commonalities, differences and challenges in day-to-day development practice. The article claims that while both approaches originate from the same family of programme theory, the LFA has over the years somehow lost its analytic lens to capture social change and become more of a donor-driven performance management tool. The ToC has restored some of these analytical and engagement aspects that the LFA approach was originally designed to elicit, but some of the practical challenges remain. The authors argue for a combined use of both methodologies, if held lightly and approached from a learning and not a compliance perspective.

Keywords

Logical Framework Approach (LFA)Logframe matrix Theory of Change (ToC)development practice

I Introduction

Working in international development requires the knowledge of and experience with programme planning methodologies and tools for the design, monitoring and evaluation of projects and programmes. Since the 1990s, the most common approach has been the Logical Framework Approach (LFA), a participatory methodology to plan, manage and evaluate development interventions. Over the last decade, Theory of Change (ToC) approaches have gradually moved into the mainstream in international development, and today a wide range of governmental, bilateral and multilateral development agencies, foundations and non-governmental organizations are using ToC-type approaches to support development outcomes. ToC approaches are seen by many as a more flexible alternative to the LFA, which, in the absence of a set methodology or prescribed formats, are hailed to support critical thinking throughout the programme cycle.

As development practitioners and trainers, we have observed some confusion about these two approaches in many development organizations. It is often unclear how or to what extent these two methodologies relate to each other, and this raises considerable discussion. This is hardly surprising, given the fact that both methodologies come from the same family of approaches: the programme theory (Funnel and Rogers, 2011). Against this background, this article discusses both approaches in terms of their commonalities and differences, with a view to their potentials and pitfalls. What is the added value of applying ToC approaches and what challenges remain in current day-to-day programme practice? Has ToC established itself as the better alternative to the LFA and been able to replace it on the ‘throne’ of development programming?

We start by considering the conceptual origins and uses of both approaches. We then move on to discuss their common elements, conceptual differences and challenges in day-to-day development practice. The final section argues for a combined use of both approaches, as both have strong elements to better navigate the daily realities of programme work.

II Origins and uses

The dominance of the Logical Framework Approach

The LFA first appeared in 1969 as an early example of programme theory. Subsequently, the LFA was further developed for use by NASA and adopted by UN agencies and USAID in the 1970s as a programme design methodology. It has since been widely adopted by the majority of international multilateral and bilateral donors (INTRAC, 2015). The LFA describes both—a general participatory approach to programme planning, monitoring and evaluation and—in the form of a ‘Logframe matrix’—a discrete planning and monitoring tool. The LFA includes several analytical steps (which may slightly vary from one organization to another) and is designed as a participatory process, which should include relevant stakeholders. These analytical steps contain two subsequent phases: the analysis and the planning phases. The steps within the analysis phase include (a) preparatory analysis, (b) stakeholder analysis, (c) problem analysis, (d) analysis of objectives and (e) analysis of strategies. The steps within the planning phase include (f) the Logframe matrix, (g) activity scheduling and (h) resource scheduling (European Commission, 2004). The matrix is hence one of the products of the LFA design process that serves to translate this broader LFA theory into action. As a document, it is supposed to provide a simple overview of the intervention logic and guide implementation through the programme lifecycle.

The Logframe matrix is a four-component model of outputs (or expected results), outcome (or purpose) and impact (or goal). For each component, four aspects are articulated: a narrative description, objectively verifiable indicators, means of verification and assumptions. The matrix is meant to link the different programme components to the activities. There are different versions of Logframe matrices, but they are all based on the ‘if–then’ logic: If the activities are implemented, then the stated outputs will be delivered. If the outputs are delivered, then the outcome will be achieved and if the outcome is achieved, it contributes to or achieves the goal(s).

By the mid-1990s, the Logframe matrix had become a basic requirement of every funding application among international development donors, and designing such a matrix has now become a vital part of a programme officer’s skill set. Despite mounting critique as being too rigid and linear, the use of Logframe matrices is still widespread among the development community,¹ while the analytical planning steps of the LFA approach that constitute the foundational steps of a Logframe matrix’s vertical logic are often no longer explicitly required by many donors and funders.

The emergence of Theory of Change

The ToC methodology has originated in American universities outside debates about the Logframe in the 1980s. It draws its methodological credentials from a practice called the ‘Theory-Based Evaluation’ and famous authors such as Huey Chen, Peter Rossi, Michael Quinn Patton, Helene Clark as well as Carol Weiss were reflecting on programme theories in relation to evaluations. Early references to ToC as a methodology for planning development programmes go back to the late 1990s, particularly the Aspen Institute. ToC is also informed by Freirian theory of social change (James, 2011), a long-standing reflective development practice used with empowerment and social change projects.

While there is no common definition, most definitions point at the direction of ‘change’. A ToC shows the bigger picture, the ‘messy’, ‘real’ world and how it is all connected with each other. Some current ToC definitions are:

A theory of change is a description of a social change initiative that shows how early changes related to more intermediate changes and then to longer-term change. (Charities Evaluation Service, 2011: 2)

ToC is a process and a product, as pointed out in the Hivos ToC Guidelines:
ToC is a thinking and action approach to navigate the complexity of social change. It is a way of looking at the world that calls on and fosters people’s capacities for critical questioning, not taking things for granted, dealing with uncertainties, and acknowledging the inevitability of diverse perspectives. (Hivos, 2015: 13)

Funnel and Rogers add:
Every programme is packed with beliefs, assumptions and hypotheses about how change happens—about the way humans work, or organisations, or political systems, or ecosystems. Theory of change is about articulating these many underlying assumptions about how change will happen in a programme. (Funnel and Rogers, 2011: 15)

Over the last decade, ToC approaches have moved into the mainstream of international development and a wide range of development organizations are now using ‘ToC’-type approaches.² This particularly owes to the following two key drivers: the results-based management agenda with its intricate need to demonstrate impact and evidence-based learning, on the one hand, and the growing recognition of the ambiguities and uncertainties of development work, involving complex political and social change dynamics at different scale levels (Vogel, 2012: 8).

III Their commonalities, differences and challenges

What do they have in common?

The analytical process

Both methodologies consist of analytical design steps that lead to a product in the form of a table/matrix (in the case of LFA) or a diagrammatic or pictorial graphic (in the case of ToC). For LFA, the analytical process is a set of five subsequent analytical tools that build on each other,³ whereas methodologies for ToC approaches may vary depending on the purpose, scope and type of organization.⁴ The use of the LFA approach in practice, however, tends to put a stronger emphasis on the product—the Logframe matrix—as this is often a mandatory deliverable required by the donor (“we have done and submitted our Logframe matrix”). For ToC, on the other hand, the product—the documenting of the ToC map and narrative—is rather viewed as an important but interim step in order to mark the current ‘state of the art’ discussions among a particular group of people (Vogel, 2012: 33).

Explaining causality

Both methodologies belong to the programme theory family. Programme theories urge a more explicit focus on the theoretical underpinnings of programmes and a clearer articulation of how programmes are intended to work. Hence, both, the LFA and ToC, map out the logical sequence of a programme—from inputs and activities through to the outcomes or changes it seeks to trigger.⁵

When using an LFA, however, there is critique that the ‘theory’ behind a programme often tends to be little elaborated.⁶ This, at least in our experience, owes a great deal to the contemporary (mis)use of the LFA, which has somehow lost its original intentions. While initially designed as a systematic analysis and planning process containing a sequence of analytical steps, many implementing agencies do not have the time, money or simply awareness of the importance of carrying out the entire LFA process. For many practitioners, the LFA equals the filling out of the Logframe matrix, and this is hardly surprising since many donors do not explicitly require the design of a stakeholder mapping or problem (tree) analysis (Prinsen and Nijhof, 2015). As a result, many implementing agencies tend to settle for the ‘good enough’ approach—that is, the use of some LFA steps in planning workshops and interview settings. Others simply base their programme document on information from previous intervention experiences and write a project document full of development jargon. But a missing in-depth context and problem analysis, however, also influence the formulation of the outcome and output statements in a Logframe matrix. In the absence of a thorough previous context analysis, outputs and outcomes are often formulated too optimistic, overambitious and simply unrealistic for the duration of the programme.

Analysing cause-effect relations

Related to the first aspect is the potential of both methodologies to study the long chain of cause–effect relations. In ToC approaches, the avenues through which programme planners expect to achieve ultimate outcomes and impacts are usually referred to as ‘pathways of change’ or ‘outcome chains’. The LFA approach, on the other hand, has two similar tools to analyse the cause–effect relations: the ‘problem tree’ and the ‘objective tree’. The problem tree maps the core problem and its root causes and what other problems are consequences of the core problem. The sub- sequent objective tree transforms the core problem identified in the problem tree into a positive future scenario. In original LFA thinking, both these tools constitute the foundational steps for building a vertical logic connecting the activities, outputs, outcomes and impact in a cause–effect sequence into the Logframe matrix. This approach though has been criticized for simplifying reality showing a clear and linear structure of change with no feedback loops. This is also reflected in the different ‘if-then’ logic. The approach in ToC is: ‘If we do A then B will change, because...’; the LFA, on the other hand, poses the question: ‘If we plan for A then this will lead to B’.

Exploring assumptions

Both approaches entail mechanisms in their conceptual design about ‘making assumptions explicit’, albeit with different connotations and levels of success. With LFA, the original intention was to use the ‘assumptions’ column of the Logframe matrix to analyse external dependencies that would influence the programme’s effectiveness. The programme team had to decide whether to directly address or mitigate these factors. More recently, though, in weak Logframe matrices, they are often treated in a superficial manner, turning the assumptions column into ‘the parking lot for a long list of self-evident statements, such as “war won’t break out” or “resources will continue to flow in”’ (Gujit, 2013: 1). Assumptions are often treated as just another box that needs to be filled in, and they are not made explicit. Probably in response to re-emphasize the need to detail the assumptions that underpin programme activities, making assumptions explicit has become a central element of ToC approaches: ‘there are often a good number of different beliefs, values, hypotheses, interests, objectives and expectations behind each intervention and all these aspects should to be unpacked, unfolded, and be made explicit and comprehensible’ (Rogers, 2008: 30). In practice, however, this deeper questioning that unlocks critical thinking remains a challenging task, with many ToC approaches remaining ‘superficial’ and ‘mechanistic’ (Vogel, 2012: 22).

Stakeholder involvement

Both approaches strongly advocate for a wide stakeholder participation and representation in programme planning meetings. The LFA makes use of a range of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) tools to elicit local knowledge and information for a more people-centred planning of development projects. While some of these participatory approaches have been critiqued as making the rural poor the ‘object’ of development, without any real interest in their local realities, especially in the 1990s, a lot of effort went into producing manuals, research papers and guidance notes to better picture the social dimensions of change and include these reflections in the LFA approach (e.g., Montomery, 1995; Mosse, 2005). ToC approaches equally embed strong participatory principles to ensure local actors are not alienated from developing a ToC process. As one NGO official noted in a ToC workshop setting (James, 2011: 5): ‘Theory of change is a story-telling type of methodology that asks simple questions, involves everyone…’. This requires a willingness to drop unclear terminology (and associated technical acronyms) and shift the focus to genuine debate and discussion with partners and communities. However, there also exist critical voices of such grassroots approaches, as some ToC advocates conclude that constructing a valid theory inevitably requires the analytical skills of specialists who draw from existing theories in the social or cognitive sciences for real evidence-based learning. In some cases, not many of such theories may be ‘elementary, simplistic, partial, or even outright wrong’ (Weiss, 2007: 78).

This overview illustrates that both approaches have many elements in common, and that some of the original intentions of the LFA approach as a tool for deep questioning are now re-emphasized by emerging ToC approaches. Besides these commonalities, in some aspects, they are also distinct from each other.

What are their conceptual differences?

From project to people

The first conceptual difference is a shift in focus from the project management perspective to a long-term change perspective for people or institutions. This is a complete shift in mind-set, since with the LFA ‘the project/programme’ is in the focus, while with the ToC the focus shifts to the ‘people or institutions’ and their new and changed situation. In Logframe matrices, the outcome, objective or purpose level (depending on the terminology used) presents what the programme will achieve. And many of these outcome statements are neither about ‘change’ nor about ‘people or institutions‘ (although there is a large difference among implementing organizations). As a result, project and people drift apart. Also, the language used in the Logframe matrix ‘...such as “planning”, and “delivering” results, suggests project implementers are in control of the situation and can predict or promise what will happen over time’ (Hivos, 2015: 14).

ToC approaches are viewed as encouraging broader views of change beyond the immediate programme that encompasses the realities of the (social, political, technical and environmental) context. Starting the change analysis on a higher level than the programme logic to fully explore the issues around a programme therefore contributes to seeing the bigger picture. What is the long-term change we want to see and how are we going to get there step by step? Seeing how our daily work contributes to this long-term change is also a motivational tool, ‘reminding everyone why we are doing this’. This is a rather refreshing change from the project-focused outputs and outcomes that project managers are pressured so hard to deliver and report on in regular intervals (and by doing so, risk losing sight of the bigger picture).

Bridging the missing middle

The second conceptual difference is unpacking the ‘black box’ of causality between the different result levels what in development jargon are called output, outcome and impact. ToC thinking can help to bridge the ‘missing middle’ that the Logframe matrix hides, as it breaks down the programme in various little intermediate steps or ‘pathways of change’. Mapping these avenues through which one expects the ultimate change to happen is generally seen as rewarding by those involved in constructing a ToC. Such a detailed pathway also helps in analysing where things went right and where exactly they went wrong along the path.

Due to its rigid format, the conventional Logframe matrix leaves no room for such intermediate steps and feedback mechanisms and rather proposes big conceptual leaps, where the short- and medium-term outcomes of the project are directly connected with the long term of societal change. But many funding agencies have reacted to this critique and have adapted their LFA planning approaches in recognition of the ‘missing middle’. The German development cooperation agency, GIZ, for example, now emphasizes ‘use of outputs’ as an intermediate outcome, while the Swedish development agency, SIDA, is working with a new approach that encourages programmes to express a medium-term change that bridges from project outputs to higher-level outcomes (Vogel, 2012). Similarly, the European Commission has moved its LFA approach towards a focus on change, and this is also reflected in the results-chain terminology now being used in their Logframe templates. This is also in line with the policies adopted by other development agencies like USAID and DFID.⁷

Acknowledging complexity

Another aspect that receives a lot of appreciation by development staff is ToC’s explicit call for studying the complex environment within which a project or programme is embedded. People are actively invited to grapple with and understand the complex web of ever-changing (formal and informal) relationships in their daily work practice. In her blog, Green (2015) uses the metaphor of ToC as a compass that helps us ‘find our way through the fog of complex systems, discovering a path as we go along’. Applying a ToC approach is therefore particularly appealing for planning complex development programmes. A simple Logframe matrix would miss out on too much detailed information including all the ‘cause-and-effect’ assumptions.

Reflecting dynamics

Another conceptual difference is the shift from a prescriptive project perspective to embracing a more flexible approach that avoids an inappropriate level of detail.

While the LFA methodology can be placed within the range of conventional programme management tools that tend to ignore ‘process elements’, treating projects as ‘closed, controllable and unchanging systems’ (Valters, 2015: 5), ToC proponents advocate very much for treating ToC primarily as an ongoing and flexible process of uncovering and critically appraising assumptions that may only emerge as programmes unfold. Rather than a prescribed methodology, ToC is most effective when applied through pre-existing processes to support critical thinking throughout the programme cycle. By activating critical reflection, ToC’s real potential lies in supporting programmes’ innovation and adaptation in response to dynamic contexts. Critical thinking is also cross-checked with evidence from research (e.g., from macro theories of change or models from other cultural traditions of how change happens) related to the causal links that bring other analytical perspectives.

This shift towards more flexibility is also reflected in the graphical presentation of the LFA and ToC products. While the Logframe matrix consists of an overview table with well-established headings at the top and the left-hand side, designs of a ToC diagram or pictorial graphic are lacking a specific prescribed format. Designs may range from simple planning triangles to more complicated logic models or outcome chains. Ideally, a ToC is also accompanied by a written description or narrative to include all the necessary details. Since they can be adapted to a specific use or target group, these visuals likely support a more dynamic exchange between donors, development partners and communities than Logframes normally do.

ToC may also vary in their scope, focus and level of detail, depending on their specific purpose. Picture drawings stripped back to core elements may be useful for communication purposes, while the implementing team may need more detail. Even within a single initiative, different teams may require more details about a particular aspect of the ToC to support their work. ToC can also be applied at different scale levels, including the macro level (to explore broad social change theories), the organizational level (to inform strategic planning) or the project/programme level (to understand the contribution to change).

Performance versus impact

The Logframe matrix with its neat, orderly structure of the specific project or programme pathway makes it easy to monitor implementation. Monitoring largely tends to take place on the output level (process and output monitoring) and to a lesser extent on the higher outcome level (outcome or results monitoring). Hence, the Logframe matrix may be regarded more of a formulaic template that assists in donor reporting on lower-level results.

ToC approaches, on the other hand, can bring greater clarity and robustness to the concepts of impact and represent frameworks for tracking changes and analysing linkages on the higher outcomes and impact levels. They also provide a good basis for evidencing impact and demonstrating the causal relationship between the occurred changes and the activities of the programme.⁸ With a ToC, it is possible to prioritize what to measure and pick out the most important outcomes for each specific programme. Particular links can be ‘tested’ during the implementation lifetime of the programme in order to illustrate where along the pathway an actual impact has (or has not) been generated.⁹ A ToC may therefore provide a fundamental pillar for an organization’s effectiveness measurement framework (NPC workshop notes, 2017). Another key benefit for using ToC approaches is to bring ‘evaluative thinking’ into a programme at an early stage. A focus on the context and process of change that a programme seeks helps to clarify the focus of monitoring and evaluation questions and identify progress markers (Vogel, 2012: 43).

Which operational challenges remain?

While ToC has been praised as a promising practice among development practitioners, there are also operational challenges when applying ToC concepts in practice. Some of these challenges are similar to those weaknesses encountered in the past with LFA approaches, while others are new. We basically find three broad sets of challenges: (1) power relations, (2) semantic and (3) emotional challenges.

Power relations and politics

The probably most challenging yet central element in ToC practice is making assumptions—the deeply held individual and collective perceptions and world views—explicit. Tapping into deeper personal and group values takes time and requires trust, confidence and (relatively) equal power levels to enter into a constructive dialogue with all the different stakeholders involved. Similar to the critique of LFA approaches is the issue of power relations, both within the programme’s context and within organizations, that limit the ability to challenge established ways of working (Vogel, 2012). Programme design does not take place in a vacuum and organizational hierarchies, norms, experiences and interests (including the donor) may influence views on how a programme ‘should’ work. At times, ‘ideal’ programme strategies that are in line with organizational norms may be written in planning documents, even if they do not reflect the programme reality. Similarly, flexibility in programme responses, at both the design stage and, more importantly, in implementation and performance management, demand an institutional willingness on both sides—the implementing organizations as well as the donor side.

Uncertainty about terminology

Every paradigm shift in development cooperation usually comes with its specific terminology. This is also true for ToC approaches, as the mere word of ‘theory’ is seen by many practitioners as academic and daunting. The vocabulary of result chains, as used in (most contemporary) Logframe matrices, on the other hand, appears more accessible to many of our development colleagues (see also Vogel, 2012). Some organizations have specified and defined their own ToC terminology. The UK-based charity think tank New Philanthropy Capital (NPC), for instance, uses the term ‘internal and external enablers’, which are conditions or factors that need to be present or absent to allow an organization or programme to succeed (Harries et al., 2014: 4). And to add to the confusion: some of the terms used in ToC approaches have the same meaning as the terms used in the results-chain logic (e.g., outcomes), but their formulation is somewhat different. An outcome statement in ToC thinking, for instance, should describe a changed situation in the future, and not an activity. Many practitioners applying a ToC, use verbs, however, such as, increase women’s functional literacy skills instead of rather formulating it as women know how to read and write. Similarly, outcome statements in a ToC should stand alone as an end separated from the means to get there. Only this way, it can be possible to link the individual outcomes as separate but logical steps along the pathway of change. In our experience though, we find that means and ends are combined in one outcome statement, using mostly the words ‘through’ or ‘by’. Some examples include: through a regular training cycle, partners have better capacities’ or ‘by undertaking action research, we will have hard data available. The problem with these two semantic challenges is that it inhibits the logical flow of steps and thus increases operational complexity.

Another recurrent pattern we find with training participants in particular is the combination of several, possibly conflicting, long-term outcomes in one individual pathway of change. Some examples include: improved physical and mental well-being, or young people develop new skills and improved self-confidence. This, again, generates difficulties in the practical application of the ToC (e.g., new skills and self-confidence are not the same, as the acquisition of skills come first in the change logic). Only if we elaborate outcomes individually do they reveal ‘their potential for being contradictory or mutually exclusive’ (Prinsen and Nijhof, 2015: 243).

Time and resource constraints

Stepping out of project boxes and effectively unlocking critical thinking is a critical factor to getting the benefits of ToC thinking. This, however, requires time and resources.

Especially for larger programmes with many stakeholders and/or countries involved, the theories and programme strategies take time to emerge. To tackle this issue and not add additional workload for already time-pressured practitioners is to think of ‘light-touch’ ways of embedding ToC approaches in daily programme implementation practice. This can be done by using familiar terminology and working through existing planning processes (e.g., team meetings). Group discussions can be initiated and continued through all communication channels, not only in a workshop setting.

Grappling with too much complexity?

While ToC approaches are hailed as grappling with complexity, this may also trigger an emotional backlash: a daunting realization of how many other conditions also need to be in place that cannot be addressed through one programme alone, coupled with a recognition of the negative but unavoidable consequences and knock-on effects the programme may have, that need to be mitigated. This may be the case with road infrastructure or other integrated rural development programmes that may foster (illegal) timber trade.

IV Conclusion and the way forward

As both originate from the same family of programme theories, LFA and ToC approaches have certain elements in common: they both have the potential to map out and analyse the logical sequence of how a programme is supposed to work (even though with different levels of precision), they both have the potential to explore assumptions (even though with different connotations) and to invite participatory stakeholder processes. Over the years, however, it seems that the LFA has moved a long way from how it was originally intended to be used: the analytical steps that constitute the foundational process steps for building a logical cause–effect sequence are often dropped, often resulting in generic narrative project documents including weak and inflexible Logframe matrices. It seems that ToC approaches have restored some of these analytical and ‘engagement’ aspects that the LFA approach was originally designed to elicit: they trigger insights into the messy and complex world of social change, have the potential to see the bigger picture and make visible the ‘missing middle’ that the Logframe matrix hides.

Seeing all these benefits, has ToC established itself as the better alternative to the LFA and been able to replace it on the throne of development programming? We argue that there should be room for both. ToC is not a magic bullet, and just like the LFA, it can be used as poorly or as well as any other approach. At the same time, the Logframe matrix as a performance management tool seems as popular as ever with development funders and many (e.g., European Commission, USAID, etc.) have adapted their formats to provide for a greater focus on social change. Some of these Logframe matrices now combine elements of ToC thinking in their classical LFA approaches and have adapted their vocabulary to results-chain terminology (e.g., the new EU Logframe), while others have added additional levels to better illustrate intermediate outcomes (e.g., GIZ). Combining both approaches works best when they have two clearly distinct purposes: with the ToC explaining the bigger picture of how we see the world and we think change happens and the Logframe matrix then becoming a management and measurement tool for making resource decisions. As Barr (in Vogel, 2012: 21) puts it: ‘The Logframe is good for defining success, but not for defining reality’. But it may also work the other way round: ToC may also be worked into an existing Logframe matrix to map the ‘missing middle’, detailing the logical steps between a programme and top-level outcomes.

To live up to their potential, however, ToCs should be held flexibly and lightly and should be approached by implementing organizations and donor agencies from a learning rather than a compliance perspective. Turning them into a mandatory and prescribed process would diminish their usefulness, quickly losing much of their intended ownership value. This is probably the main learning we may take home from the previous critique of the LFA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

Notes

References

1.
Charities Evaluation Service 2011: Making connections: Using a theory of change to develop planning and evaluation. CES.

2.
European Commission 2004: Aid delivery methods. Project cycle management. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aid-delivery-methods-project-cycle-management-200403_en_2.pdf, last accessed 19 January 2019 .

3.
Funnel S. C. and Rogers P. J. 2011: Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. Jossey-Bass.

4.
Gujit I. 2013: ToC reflection notes 3: Working with assumptions in a theory of change process. http://www.theoryofchange.nl/sites/default/files/resource/toc_notes_3_working_with_assumptions_in_a_toc_process.pdf, last accessed 19 January 2019 .

5.
Green D. 2015: Where have we got to on theories of change? Passing fad or paradigm shift? From poverty to power blog, 16 April, http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/where-have-we-got-to-on-theories-of-change-passingfad-or-paradigm-shift/, last accessed 19 January 2019 .

6.
Harries E. Hodgson L. and Noble J. 2014: Creating your theory of change: NPC’s practical guide. New Philanthropy Capital.

7.
Hivos 2015: Theory of change guidelines—Theory of change thinking in practice. http://www.theoryofchange.nl/sites/default/files/resource/hivos_toc_guidelines_final_nov_2015.pdf, last accessed 13 December 2017 .

8.
INTRAC 2015: The logical framework. https://www.intrac.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Monitoring-and-Evaluation-Series-The-logical-framework-12.pdf, last accessed 19 January 2019 .

9.
James C. 2011: Comic relief theory of change review. https://www.actknowledge.org/resources/documents/James_ToC.pdf, last accessed 19 January 2019 .

10.
Mosse D. 2005: Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. Ann Arbor.

11.
Montomery R. 1995: Short guidance notes on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid projects and programmes. CDS, University College of Wales.

12.
Prinsen G. and Nijhof S. 2015: Between logframes and theory of change: Reviewing debates and a practical experience. Development in Practice, 25, 2, 234–46.

13.
Rogers P.J. 2008: Using programme theory for complicated and complex programmes. Evaluation, 14, 1, 29–48.

14.
Valters C. 2015: Theories of change: Time for a radical approach to learning in development. Overseas Development Institute.

15.
Vogel I. 2012: Review of the use of ‘theory of change’ in international development, review report commissioned by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). http://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/DFID_ToC_Review_VogelV7.pdf, last accessed 19 January 2019 .

16.
Weiss C. 2007: Theory-based evaluation: Past, present and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 68–81.