Sarah Chapman, Adiilah Boodhoo, Carren Duffy, Suki Goodman, Maria Michalopoulou
{"title":"Theory of Change in Complex Research for Development Programmes: Challenges and Solutions from the Global Challenges Research Fund.","authors":"Sarah Chapman, Adiilah Boodhoo, Carren Duffy, Suki Goodman, Maria Michalopoulou","doi":"10.1057/s41287-023-00574-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47650,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Development Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9974048/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Development Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-023-00574-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
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.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Development Research (EJDR) redefines and modernises what international development is, recognising the many schools of thought on what human development constitutes. It encourages debate between competing approaches to understanding global development and international social development. The journal is multidisciplinary and welcomes papers that are rooted in any mixture of fields including (but not limited to): development studies, international studies, social policy, sociology, politics, economics, anthropology, education, sustainability, business and management. EJDR explicitly links with development studies, being hosted by European Association of Development Institutes (EADI) and its various initiatives.
As a double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal, we particularly welcome submissions that improve our conceptual understanding of international development processes, or submissions that propose policy and developmental tools by analysing empirical evidence, whether qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods or anecdotal (data use in the journal ranges broadly from narratives and transcripts, through ethnographic and mixed data, to quantitative and survey data). The research methods used in the journal''s articles make explicit the importance of empirical data and the critical interpretation of findings. Authors can use a mixture of theory and data analysis to expand the possibilities for global development.
Submissions must be well-grounded in theory and must also indicate how their findings are relevant to development practitioners in the field and/or policy makers. The journal encourages papers which embody the highest quality standards, and which use an innovative approach. We urge authors who contemplate submitting their work to the EJDR to respond to research already published in this journal, as well as complementary journals and books. We take special efforts to include global voices, and notably voices from the global South. Queries about potential submissions to EJDR can be directed to the Editors.
EJDR understands development to be an ongoing process that affects all communities, societies, states and regions: We therefore do not have a geographical bias, but wherever possible prospective authors should seek to highlight how their study has relevance to researchers and practitioners studying development in different environments. Although many of the papers we publish examine the challenges for developing countries, we recognize that there are important lessons to be derived from the experiences of regions in the developed world.
The EJDR is print-published 6 times a year, in a mix of regular and special theme issues; accepted papers are published on an ongoing basis online. We accept submissions in English and French.