La teoria del cambiamento: origini, misunderstanding e misuse ed elementi innovativi

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Laura Fantini
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2024/90
Language Italian Pages 15 P. 96-110 File size 418 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2024-090007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Carol Weiss was the first who mentioned the Theory of Change (ToC) in 1995 (Connel et al., 1995) and then more explicitly in much of her work. Today, more than 25 years later, the ToC has become part of the common language of those who design, implement and evaluate development cooperation initiatives. However, as often happens in conceptual application processes that are not accompanied by proper guidance, ToC is frequently used as yet another static tool that retraces the logic of intervention (logical framework). It often seems to respond more to a need for synthesis and easy representation than to an explanatory need. Formulating the ToC of an intervention means facilitating the elicitation and the articulation of the various explanatory theories that may underpin it. All program stakeholders should participate in this process of theory articulation. Given the recent widespread use of ToC, the aim of this paper is to refocus attention on the reasons that led to the emergence of ToC and its original innovative elements. The author intends to highlight a series of Misunderstandings and Misuses of ToC that have weakened its innovative potential, while also reminding us of its possibilities. When interpreted and used correctly, the ToC becomes a tool to foster and facilitate the dialogue between evaluators and commissioners. It helps them to observe and reflect on the path to change, even when it appears different from what was originally planned.

Keywords: Theory of Change; Development Cooperation; Possible Change; Complexity.

  1. Connell, J.P., Kubisch, A.C., Schorr, L.B., Weiss, C.H. (1995). Introduction in New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol I Concepts, Methods, and Contexts, Washington: The Aspen Institute.
  2. Connell, J.P., Kubisch, A.C. (1998). Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects and Problems, in FulbrightAnderson K., New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: vol. II, Theory, Measurement and Analysis, The Aspen Institute, Washington.
  3. DahlerLarsen, P. (2018). TheoryBased Evaluation Meets Ambiguity: The Role of Janus Variables, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 39(1) 623, Sage Pubblications.
  4. Funnell, S.C. e Rogers, P.J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models, San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
  5. Hirschman, A.O. (1971). «Political economics» e possibilismo, Introduzione in italiano a “A Bias for Hope. Essays on Development and Latin America”, New Haven, Yale University Press”, in Meldolesi L., a cura di (1988), Come complicare l’economia, Bologna, Il Mulino, pp. 319356.
  6. Pawson, R. e Tilley, N. (1997). An introduction to scientific realist evaluation, in Chelimsky E., Shadish W. (a cura di), Evaluation for the 21st century, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  7. Rogers, P.J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T.A., Hacsi, T.A. (2000). Program Theory Evaluation: Practice, Promise, and Problems, New Direction for Evaluation, N. 87, Fall, JosseyBass.
  8. Rogers, P.J. (2005). Evaluating complicated—and complex—programs using theory of change, Evaluation Exchange, Vol. 11 (2)
  9. Rogers, P. J., Weiss, C.H. (2007). Theorybased evaluation: Reflections ten years on: Theorybased evaluation: Past, present, and future, New directions for evaluation, Vol. 114 pp. 6381, Wiley.
  10. Rogers, P. (2024). Developing, representing, and using theories of change for interventions in complex systems, in Koleros, A., Adrien, M.H. e Tyrrell, T. (a cura di), Theories of Change in Reality. Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions, Routledge.
  11. Stame, N. (2002). La valutazione realistica: una svolta, nuovi sviluppi, in Fasanella e Stame (a cura di), Realismo e Valutazione, Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale n.68/69, FrancoAngeli.
  12. Stame, N. (2004). Theorybased Evaluation and Types of Complexity, Evaluation, Vol 10 (1) pp. 58–76, Sage Publications.
  13. Van der Knaap, P. (2024). Theories of change and the evaluation of sustainable impact. Moving beyond simplicity in development cooperation, in Koleros, A., Adrien, M.H. e Tyrrell, T. (a cura di), Theories of Change in Reality. Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions, Routledge.
  14. Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  15. Weiss, C. (1995). Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theorybased Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families, in Connell J. P., Kubisch, A.C., Schorr, L.B. e Weiss, C. H. (a cura di), New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts., Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Weiss, C. (1997). Theorybased evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 41–55, traduzione in italiano “La valutazione basata sulla teoria. Passato, presente e futuro”, in Stame N., a cura di (2007), Classici della valutazione, FrancoAngeli.
  16. Weiss, C. (1998), Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 19 (1) pp. 2133.

Laura Fantini, La teoria del cambiamento: origini, misunderstanding e misuse ed elementi innovativi in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 90/2024, pp 96-110, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2024-090007