A Transition Theory of Change: Creating our Roadmap
Report from Local Workshops: Lewes and Brixton (June and July 2013)
A series of three workshops on the Theory of Change (ToC) for Transition was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council as part of the Connected Communities Showcase. Two explored the value of Theory of Change for local Transition initiatives (in Lewes on June 30th and Brixton on July 7th); a third, for the wider Transition Network, took place in Bristol on July 3rd.
The two local workshops used ToC as an overarching framework to enable transitioners to evaluate progress in their own communities. They also aimed to inform efforts to create new strategies, methods and tools for evaluating the work of Transition Initiatives and the Transition Movement as a whole. This page describes the background to this work, summarises what happened at the events, and reflects on the learning for the wider Transition movement.
Background
As the Transition movement grows, the need to evaluate Transition's goal of building resilience through community action is increasingly important to both demonstrate value to outsiders and to learn from less positive (or even negative) experiences. The recent Transition Research Network (TRN) ‘Connection, Participation and Empowerment’ (CPE) explored how to address the need for new processes to measure and evaluate progress in Transition. It identified, as a goal for further research, the possibility of adapting existing Theory of Change models to help develop frameworks for monitoring and evaluation for Transition. These two workshops responded to this goal, complementing work being undertaken in a parallel project on Monitoring and Evaluation for Sustainable Communities, and feeding into the key TRN theme of Monitoring and Evaluation.
Introduction to Theory of Change (ToC)
Projects address aims, set objectives, and undertake activities. Underpinning these aims, objectives and activities are theories of change that are not always explicit. Theory of Change work tries to reveal and interrogate the ideas of change and the assumptions behind these. Often we know what we want to change, but might not know how and with whom we will make this change possible. We may also be making assumptions about how change will happen. An example of an unfounded assumption is that awareness-raising encourages people to action, which is not necessarily the case.
So ToC work makes explicit our vision and aims, as well as our plan (or map) for achieving them. A theory of change is a description of a sequence of events that is expected to lead to a particular desired outcome. It also creates space to make sure our definitions are shared with those with whom we are working.
“A theory of change lays out what specific changes the group wants to see in the world, and how and why a group expects its actions to lead to those changes.” (Guthrie, K., et al, 2006)
Theories of change describe the assumptions that guide the development of processes for social change and the propositions that social change work is testing. By articulating these factors, theories of change can inform an evaluation plan. This theoretical work enables activists and campaigners to reflect on how their campaigns are progressing towards defined objectives. While there are many theories of change, this project was based on the work of Ruth Mayne at the Oxford Environmental Change Institute. A summary of some relevant theories of social change can be found in a paper by Ruth and colleagues on the EVALOC project: ‘Individual and Social Influences on Energy Use', available for download here.
The Workshops
The two local workshops introduced the Theories of Change and involved participants in exercises designed to explore a ToC for Transition. ToC facilitator Beverley Duckworth designed the programme at Lewes and facilitated the first workshop. The second workshop in Brixton was based on Beverley’s workshop design and was facilitated by collectively by Jody Boehnert and Tom Henfrey with help by Ruth Mayne. The workshop plans can be viewed here. We are publishing these workshop plans with the intention of encouraging other Transition groups to make space to run their own theory of change workshops.
The workshops also examined two questions:
Q1: ‘Can the Theory of Change model become a useful tool for Transition in the development of evaluation methods?’
Q2: ‘Is it possible for resilience to be evaluated by local communities and translated into specific measurable targets?’
The results from the workshops are summarized below.
Workshop No.1: Lewes. June 30th 2013
The event took place at The Buttercup Café in Lewes and was organised locally by Sue Fleming and Juliet Oxborrow. 24 participants attended from seven Transition groups across the North East. We were also accompanied by Transition Network's newly appointed delivery director Sarah McAdam, there with the host group's permission in an observing capacity.
Beverley started the day using a cycling metaphor. Who cycles to work? We know how to do this due to practice. However, if you were to try to cycle somewhere new (say, around the world) you would need to spend time planning it beforehand. Mapping your journey is important to ensure you successfully get from A to B, if you are embarking on a new and challenging route. part of going where you want to go if you are planning to go a different way to what is habitual. In a similar way, if we are attempting to achieve change, it makes sense to plan our route. This is where theory of change comes in. It is both a ‘road map’ which shows how you expect to achieve your goals and a way of checking assumptions.It sets out WHAT you want to change, HOW you are going to create the change, and WHY your actions will lead to the changes you want. Theory of change is an extension of the logic model, but offers more flexibility to capture the complexity of a change process like transition.
If we are attempting to achieve change, it makes sense to plan our route. This is where theory of change comes in. It is both a road map for change and a way of checking assumptions: WHAT, HOW, WHY? This logic model enables us to clarify our objectives while sharing our vision with others.
A: Visioning
After the introduction to the Theory of Change we broke into small groups and did a visioning exercise. Groups were asked to make a picture of their vision for their transition community in 5-10 years time, and pull out any key words. During the feedback session the visions described included: an eco-school, community orchard, little houses with food forest, urban back alleys with bee hives, self-sufficient town, energy company co-owned by everyone, inter-generational housing, land divided up amongst everyone, local finance, flowers and vegetables not lawns, more markets, pedestrian space, a day with no cars, no ownership without responsibility, more meaningful jobs for youth and least advantaged especially, connection to landscape – food growing everywhere, diversity and biodiversity, young people working on land, information centre on water and compost loos, getting everyone involved not just 10%, focus on reducing waste in community, locally owned and generated energy, wind farms on every roundabout, places to talk, sharing cars, and consciousness about waste.
B: Mapping Pathways of Change
Individual participants were asked to think of one or two objectives, i.e. specific changes that could contribute to the overall vision that their group created. They were asked to write them on post-it notes and then take these notes and group them on a board. Groups were formed around different objectives. Each group was asked to map outcomes while also challenging their assumptions. Some of the initial categories assembled by the facilitators were called into question and discussed by participants, who commented upon the interconnections among them and the lack of clear boundaries between them. The facilitators responded by modifying some of these categories and inviting participants to challenge and if necessary change these over the course of their subsequent group discussions. The categories eventually assigned were agreed on the proviso that everyone present would find at least one about which they felt motivated to contribute to discussions.
New groups were then formed around a number of different objectives that participants were interested in exploring further. Each group was asked to create a ‘pathway of change’ by mapping the series of outcomes which could lead to their objective. Groups then paired up to discuss each others’ pathways and question the assumptions made. Sometimes, the challenging of assumptions led to new outcomes related to information gathering becoming necessary.
Reflections:
Example: The Food Group
Objective: have food grown in every school in Lewes.
Observations: Needs some background research on what schools are already doing and whether there is anyone else working in this area (challenges the assumption that the idea has not been tried before).
Reflections: The presence of a ‘grumber’ in the discussion group was helpful, as this often drew attention to hidden assumptions.
Assumptions (emerging from discussions with another group):
C: Indicators
Participants were asked to try and devise an indicator for one of the outcomes in their pathway to change, or to think of alternative forms of assessing progress if this was not possible. Indicators and feedback included:
Wellbeing
Participants then discussed together whether they felt indicators were useful or appropriate for transition. Reflections included:
There were some who did see the value in indicators: ‘When I put in so much work, I need to know that it is having results’. Indicators seen as consistent with Permaculture principle of time-limited action, evaluated and tweaked at regular intervals: forces us to stop, reflect and adjust. Against the fear of establishing a managerial approach is the excitement about doing things in different ways – similar to participatory biodiversity monitoring. There is a need for appropriate indicators – unlike, for example, school league tables: ‘Objective’ (and dull) versus Creative (exciting!) Evaluation.
D: Reflections on the day
Participants' reflections at the end of the day included:
Workshop No.2: Brixton. 7th July 2013
The event was held in St. Vincent’s community centre and organised locally by Duncan Law of Transition Town Brixton and attended by 15 participants from half a dozen Transition groups across London. Following Ruth’s introduction to theories of change, we followed the workshop plan Beverley used in Lewes. We also asked the group to consider two questions:
In discussing the aims, objectives and associated activities, participants divided into two groups. One discussed an existing food-based enterprise that one of the initiatives present had set up. The other talked about the formation and ongoing maintenance of a sustainable food group.
The enterprise group talked about setting up a market or shop for local food. They identified the following aims:
Some of the key activities mentioned were:
Further discussions revealed and hence challenged several assumptions specific to this project:
1. Will people actually buy cheaper food?
2. Is it true that people care about where their food comes from?
3. Can the project thrive without a ‘brand’? A counterpoint raised to this was, "There is a need for branding. Tell the story or it gets told for you."
4. Can these tasks be accomplished without funding?
Along with three major, more general assumptions:
1. Local food is better
2. The market is there
3. The capacity is there
One participant reminded the rest of the group of the permaculture principle that: ‘The problem is the opportunity’.
A subsequent discussion on possible Indicators for a food-growing project raised the following suggestions:
Number of garden days?
Numbers of people were attending?
Numbers of people growing food?
Numbers of participants in growing workshops?
Yields – Weight harvest (80 grammes = one meal)
Financial turnover
Number of new committed volunteers
Local connections and friendships
Some sort of quantifier for community cohesion? (but, how do you quantify new friendships?)
Further Reflections at the end of the day included:
Transition people as overly positive. The danger of too much positive thinking. There is no objective measure.
We have this belief in the [Transition] model.
Are we thinking sufficiently critically?
Taking the 'cult' out of ‘permaculture’
It is about mainstreaming ideas (this was challenged).
The idea that Transition might be at risk of becoming a cult is perhaps worth exploring.
General Reflections (from both workshops)
We found the Theory of Change framework a good starting point for strategic thinking to enable groups in Transition to consider whether our activities will have the intended impact. As facilitators and researchers we were challenged by the groups. We encountered a strong resistance to attempts to reduce Transition to a simplistic model and conform to ‘target-driven culture’.
Despite the reservations about reducing complex Transition goals to simple indicators, there was enthusiasm for the strategic thinking and the space and time to check assumptions behind Transition work. We have seen how the ToC has the potential to make explicit some of the most challenging problems faced by Transition groups. This work will should now serve to inform the next stage of research on the developing evaluation processes for Transition and potentially delving deeper into the Theories of Change approach.
Bibliography
Coe, J. and Mayne, R. (2011) Power and social change. Campaigning Effectiveness, (London: NCVO), Prepared for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Guthrie, K., et al (2006) The Challenge of Assessing Policy and Advocacy Activities: Strategies for a Prospective Evaluation Approach (Los Angeles, The California Endowment), Prepared for The California Endowment.
Lamb, B. (2011) Campaigning for change: Learning from the United States. Campaigning Effectiveness (London: NCVO), Prepared for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Report from Local Workshops: Lewes and Brixton (June and July 2013)
A series of three workshops on the Theory of Change (ToC) for Transition was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council as part of the Connected Communities Showcase. Two explored the value of Theory of Change for local Transition initiatives (in Lewes on June 30th and Brixton on July 7th); a third, for the wider Transition Network, took place in Bristol on July 3rd.
The two local workshops used ToC as an overarching framework to enable transitioners to evaluate progress in their own communities. They also aimed to inform efforts to create new strategies, methods and tools for evaluating the work of Transition Initiatives and the Transition Movement as a whole. This page describes the background to this work, summarises what happened at the events, and reflects on the learning for the wider Transition movement.
Background
As the Transition movement grows, the need to evaluate Transition's goal of building resilience through community action is increasingly important to both demonstrate value to outsiders and to learn from less positive (or even negative) experiences. The recent Transition Research Network (TRN) ‘Connection, Participation and Empowerment’ (CPE) explored how to address the need for new processes to measure and evaluate progress in Transition. It identified, as a goal for further research, the possibility of adapting existing Theory of Change models to help develop frameworks for monitoring and evaluation for Transition. These two workshops responded to this goal, complementing work being undertaken in a parallel project on Monitoring and Evaluation for Sustainable Communities, and feeding into the key TRN theme of Monitoring and Evaluation.
Introduction to Theory of Change (ToC)
Projects address aims, set objectives, and undertake activities. Underpinning these aims, objectives and activities are theories of change that are not always explicit. Theory of Change work tries to reveal and interrogate the ideas of change and the assumptions behind these. Often we know what we want to change, but might not know how and with whom we will make this change possible. We may also be making assumptions about how change will happen. An example of an unfounded assumption is that awareness-raising encourages people to action, which is not necessarily the case.
So ToC work makes explicit our vision and aims, as well as our plan (or map) for achieving them. A theory of change is a description of a sequence of events that is expected to lead to a particular desired outcome. It also creates space to make sure our definitions are shared with those with whom we are working.
“A theory of change lays out what specific changes the group wants to see in the world, and how and why a group expects its actions to lead to those changes.” (Guthrie, K., et al, 2006)
Theories of change describe the assumptions that guide the development of processes for social change and the propositions that social change work is testing. By articulating these factors, theories of change can inform an evaluation plan. This theoretical work enables activists and campaigners to reflect on how their campaigns are progressing towards defined objectives. While there are many theories of change, this project was based on the work of Ruth Mayne at the Oxford Environmental Change Institute. A summary of some relevant theories of social change can be found in a paper by Ruth and colleagues on the EVALOC project: ‘Individual and Social Influences on Energy Use', available for download here.
The Workshops
The two local workshops introduced the Theories of Change and involved participants in exercises designed to explore a ToC for Transition. ToC facilitator Beverley Duckworth designed the programme at Lewes and facilitated the first workshop. The second workshop in Brixton was based on Beverley’s workshop design and was facilitated by collectively by Jody Boehnert and Tom Henfrey with help by Ruth Mayne. The workshop plans can be viewed here. We are publishing these workshop plans with the intention of encouraging other Transition groups to make space to run their own theory of change workshops.
The workshops also examined two questions:
Q1: ‘Can the Theory of Change model become a useful tool for Transition in the development of evaluation methods?’
Q2: ‘Is it possible for resilience to be evaluated by local communities and translated into specific measurable targets?’
The results from the workshops are summarized below.
Workshop No.1: Lewes. June 30th 2013
The event took place at The Buttercup Café in Lewes and was organised locally by Sue Fleming and Juliet Oxborrow. 24 participants attended from seven Transition groups across the North East. We were also accompanied by Transition Network's newly appointed delivery director Sarah McAdam, there with the host group's permission in an observing capacity.
Beverley started the day using a cycling metaphor. Who cycles to work? We know how to do this due to practice. However, if you were to try to cycle somewhere new (say, around the world) you would need to spend time planning it beforehand. Mapping your journey is important to ensure you successfully get from A to B, if you are embarking on a new and challenging route. part of going where you want to go if you are planning to go a different way to what is habitual. In a similar way, if we are attempting to achieve change, it makes sense to plan our route. This is where theory of change comes in. It is both a ‘road map’ which shows how you expect to achieve your goals and a way of checking assumptions.It sets out WHAT you want to change, HOW you are going to create the change, and WHY your actions will lead to the changes you want. Theory of change is an extension of the logic model, but offers more flexibility to capture the complexity of a change process like transition.
If we are attempting to achieve change, it makes sense to plan our route. This is where theory of change comes in. It is both a road map for change and a way of checking assumptions: WHAT, HOW, WHY? This logic model enables us to clarify our objectives while sharing our vision with others.
A: Visioning
After the introduction to the Theory of Change we broke into small groups and did a visioning exercise. Groups were asked to make a picture of their vision for their transition community in 5-10 years time, and pull out any key words. During the feedback session the visions described included: an eco-school, community orchard, little houses with food forest, urban back alleys with bee hives, self-sufficient town, energy company co-owned by everyone, inter-generational housing, land divided up amongst everyone, local finance, flowers and vegetables not lawns, more markets, pedestrian space, a day with no cars, no ownership without responsibility, more meaningful jobs for youth and least advantaged especially, connection to landscape – food growing everywhere, diversity and biodiversity, young people working on land, information centre on water and compost loos, getting everyone involved not just 10%, focus on reducing waste in community, locally owned and generated energy, wind farms on every roundabout, places to talk, sharing cars, and consciousness about waste.
B: Mapping Pathways of Change
Individual participants were asked to think of one or two objectives, i.e. specific changes that could contribute to the overall vision that their group created. They were asked to write them on post-it notes and then take these notes and group them on a board. Groups were formed around different objectives. Each group was asked to map outcomes while also challenging their assumptions. Some of the initial categories assembled by the facilitators were called into question and discussed by participants, who commented upon the interconnections among them and the lack of clear boundaries between them. The facilitators responded by modifying some of these categories and inviting participants to challenge and if necessary change these over the course of their subsequent group discussions. The categories eventually assigned were agreed on the proviso that everyone present would find at least one about which they felt motivated to contribute to discussions.
New groups were then formed around a number of different objectives that participants were interested in exploring further. Each group was asked to create a ‘pathway of change’ by mapping the series of outcomes which could lead to their objective. Groups then paired up to discuss each others’ pathways and question the assumptions made. Sometimes, the challenging of assumptions led to new outcomes related to information gathering becoming necessary.
Reflections:
- There was some debate around some of the categories and some people saw the reductive process of putting objectives into groups as problematic. There was a resistance to the reduction of holistic goals into ‘categories’. The attempt to group objectives in categories was imperfect – and contested.
- The episode reveals and illustrates a basic tension between the holistic perspective and integrated practice characteristic of Transition, and the practical need to use reductive processes in a process of this type: in this case, in order to separate out objectives in order to facilitate planning.
- We also found that participants often challenged their own assumptions, which led new outcomes in terms of information gathering to emerge.
Example: The Food Group
Objective: have food grown in every school in Lewes.
Observations: Needs some background research on what schools are already doing and whether there is anyone else working in this area (challenges the assumption that the idea has not been tried before).
Reflections: The presence of a ‘grumber’ in the discussion group was helpful, as this often drew attention to hidden assumptions.
Assumptions (emerging from discussions with another group):
- Is no-one else is doing this work?
- Will parents, governors and other stakeholders be supportive?
- Are there health and safety implications?
- Is money the most vital resource? Alternatives could be donations of materials, e.g. from garden centres, time, skills?
- Schools have the capacity to maintain the food-growing spaces. Need for long-term commitment; attention to WIFM element (what’s in it for me?)
C: Indicators
Participants were asked to try and devise an indicator for one of the outcomes in their pathway to change, or to think of alternative forms of assessing progress if this was not possible. Indicators and feedback included:
Wellbeing
- Hard to quantify
- Existence of support networks?
- Number participating
- Numbers/effects of practical interventions in homes
- Number of meetings
- Number of participants at meetings
- Numbers of people at events
- Levels of activity on Facebook, etc.
- Hard to distinguish indicators from outcomes
- Numbers of schools signing up
- Something giving direct evidence of activity
- Square metres of land going wild
- Birdsong
- Calculate overall usage and total renewable output in area
- Use data from suppliers
Participants then discussed together whether they felt indicators were useful or appropriate for transition. Reflections included:
- It is very much like being part of measurement culture
- The indicators are all artificial
- Danger of setting up an expensive management/managerial class
- One participant was very passionate about needing indicators to allow effective measurement
- Experimental. Do a short experiment, check indicators, move on
- How can we create a new type of indicators and way of evaluation?
- It’s the mathematical element that is applied to different areas that’s problematic
- Some activities – e.g. child education – are much more amenable to forming indicators, collecting data, and presenting evidence.
- ‘Objective’ evaluation vs. creatively evaluation
- Imposing the need for objective evaluation undertaken by outsiders is both expensive it risk conforming to target-driven culture
There were some who did see the value in indicators: ‘When I put in so much work, I need to know that it is having results’. Indicators seen as consistent with Permaculture principle of time-limited action, evaluated and tweaked at regular intervals: forces us to stop, reflect and adjust. Against the fear of establishing a managerial approach is the excitement about doing things in different ways – similar to participatory biodiversity monitoring. There is a need for appropriate indicators – unlike, for example, school league tables: ‘Objective’ (and dull) versus Creative (exciting!) Evaluation.
D: Reflections on the day
Participants' reflections at the end of the day included:
- There is always an item on the agenda called ‘strategy’ and this was a good starting point for strategy. We were given some tools to think seriously about strategy.
- We need to be careful about relying on too many scientific indicators.
- We must remember that we also have to do things because they are the right thing to do. We can never know the result of all our actions.
- It originally sounded felt a bit academic and dry– but the day was much better!
- Having tools to do this work in our own groups
- Forward planning always falls off the agenda (in Lewes) – good to have tools to go beyond that.
- Connect dots and so move from isolated ideas to bigger picture.
- The day demonstrated the potential for better-established groups to support new groups in the region.
- The process gave us ways to know that our energy is leading to positive change.
- Also useful for specific projects; help them to be taken seriously and secure funding.
- Moving into larger bigger projects: Transition becoming more serious and credible
- Caution about being too scientific and quantitative:
- o Sometimes hidden and/or long-term effects can be more significant
o Often best grasped by intuition: does it feel right?
o But more formal processes can help intuition
- Appeared very dry at first [in the publicity]. Initially looked a bit academic – lengthy description, lots of long words, [the publiciity] needed remixing to make it simple and sexy.
- Very timely given Transition Network’s efforts to support development of a learning network.
Workshop No.2: Brixton. 7th July 2013
The event was held in St. Vincent’s community centre and organised locally by Duncan Law of Transition Town Brixton and attended by 15 participants from half a dozen Transition groups across London. Following Ruth’s introduction to theories of change, we followed the workshop plan Beverley used in Lewes. We also asked the group to consider two questions:
- What value does the theory of change have for transition?
- What can we learn from the theory of change for transition initiatives?
In discussing the aims, objectives and associated activities, participants divided into two groups. One discussed an existing food-based enterprise that one of the initiatives present had set up. The other talked about the formation and ongoing maintenance of a sustainable food group.
The enterprise group talked about setting up a market or shop for local food. They identified the following aims:
- More people consume local food
- Lower food prices
- Higher awareness of new foods
- Higher awareness food waste
- Create motivation to grow more food
- Raise levels of composting
- More awareness of need for space to grow food
Some of the key activities mentioned were:
- Secure funding
- To explore idea of a daily stall
- Knocking on doors to tell people about it (especially with people who have fruit trees
- Create a position of farm manager
Further discussions revealed and hence challenged several assumptions specific to this project:
1. Will people actually buy cheaper food?
2. Is it true that people care about where their food comes from?
3. Can the project thrive without a ‘brand’? A counterpoint raised to this was, "There is a need for branding. Tell the story or it gets told for you."
4. Can these tasks be accomplished without funding?
Along with three major, more general assumptions:
1. Local food is better
2. The market is there
3. The capacity is there
One participant reminded the rest of the group of the permaculture principle that: ‘The problem is the opportunity’.
A subsequent discussion on possible Indicators for a food-growing project raised the following suggestions:
Number of garden days?
Numbers of people were attending?
Numbers of people growing food?
Numbers of participants in growing workshops?
Yields – Weight harvest (80 grammes = one meal)
Financial turnover
Number of new committed volunteers
Local connections and friendships
Some sort of quantifier for community cohesion? (but, how do you quantify new friendships?)
Further Reflections at the end of the day included:
Transition people as overly positive. The danger of too much positive thinking. There is no objective measure.
We have this belief in the [Transition] model.
Are we thinking sufficiently critically?
Taking the 'cult' out of ‘permaculture’
It is about mainstreaming ideas (this was challenged).
The idea that Transition might be at risk of becoming a cult is perhaps worth exploring.
General Reflections (from both workshops)
We found the Theory of Change framework a good starting point for strategic thinking to enable groups in Transition to consider whether our activities will have the intended impact. As facilitators and researchers we were challenged by the groups. We encountered a strong resistance to attempts to reduce Transition to a simplistic model and conform to ‘target-driven culture’.
Despite the reservations about reducing complex Transition goals to simple indicators, there was enthusiasm for the strategic thinking and the space and time to check assumptions behind Transition work. We have seen how the ToC has the potential to make explicit some of the most challenging problems faced by Transition groups. This work will should now serve to inform the next stage of research on the developing evaluation processes for Transition and potentially delving deeper into the Theories of Change approach.
Bibliography
Coe, J. and Mayne, R. (2011) Power and social change. Campaigning Effectiveness, (London: NCVO), Prepared for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Guthrie, K., et al (2006) The Challenge of Assessing Policy and Advocacy Activities: Strategies for a Prospective Evaluation Approach (Los Angeles, The California Endowment), Prepared for The California Endowment.
Lamb, B. (2011) Campaigning for change: Learning from the United States. Campaigning Effectiveness (London: NCVO), Prepared for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.