Whether exercising prescience unawares or expressing an unconscious sense of unease, August 13 of last year, I blogged, What does a theory of change look like?
Firstly it’s ‘theories’ not ‘theory’. When people talk about a single ‘theory of change’ (ToC from now on), alarm bells should ring – in the worst case it’s just a new jargon for old-school linear change, impact chains, logframes etc. Instead of a deluded search for a single grand theory of everything, we need to learn to recognize and manage a range of theories, throw them at a problem, and see which ones are helpful (see my recent experience of doing this in Tanzania).
Yes folks, we’re talking practical post modernism….. Surfacing our deeper, buried assumptions about the motors of change can also help us understand why we keep disagreeing with each other, a crucial skill in coalition-building.Broadly sketched and somewhat overlapping, the three categories are
- ‘Systemic meta-theories’;
- Archetypes; and
- Change strategies.
Theory makes more sense than expected and is not associated with specific archetypes although structuralist is obvious. Archetypes interact and follow strategies. Theories set the stage and create the obstacles - interact too. The list:
- Rational Choice: change is unintended outcome of individual choice
- Environment/techno determinism
- Long term shifts in deep underlying norms, values and beliefs
- Purposive individual/ collective action
- Marxist/Structuralist: changes in relations of production and economic power structures key
- Evolution (variation/selection/ amplification)
- Shocks and wars drive change by transforming social, political and economic relations
The typology is a work in progress, with varied comments many including supplementary links.
Read all of From Poverty to Power by Duncan Green ~Blog Archive ~ What does a theory of change look like? + comments...