Lost Causal: Debunking Myths About Causal Analysis in Philanthropy

Lynn, Jewlya; Stachowiak, Sarah; Coffman, Julia

doi:10.9707/1944-5660.1576

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many of these methods are grounded in a generative causal framework, though configurational frameworks are also relevant to some Participatory approaches ∙ Most significant change ∙ Outcome harvesting ∙ Collaborative outcomes reporting ∙ Collaborative yarning Engagement of change agents (programme participants) in defining the scope of change to be explored and in analysis of causal claims. Many of these methods are grounded in a generative causal framework Case-based approaches ∙ Within-case ∙ Across-case Analysis of causal processes within a case or across multiple cases based largely on a configurational causal framework though generative frameworks are also relevant (especially when combined with theory-based approaches) Adapted from Jenal and Liesner ( 2017 ), Lynn et al ( 2021 , Lynn and Apgar (forthcoming) …”

Section: The Shifting Landscape Of Complexity-aware Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the social change sectors, including philanthropy, there is a noticeable turn to systems interventions or systems change strategies, leading to further theoretical and practice developments in the nascent field of evaluating systems change (Gates 2017 ; Hargreaves and Podems 2012 ; Lynn et al 2021 ; Walton 2016 ). Related is the move towards innovation oriented and complexity informed programming (e.g.…”

Section: The Shifting Landscape Of Complexity-aware Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Research for Development: Innovation to Navigate Complexity

Apgar

Snijder

Higdon³

et al. 2023

Eur J Dev Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large publicly funded programmes of research continue to receive increased investment as interventions aiming to produce impact for the world’s poorest and most marginalized populations. At this intersection of research and development, research is expected to contribute to complex processes of societal change. Embracing a co-produced view of impact as emerging along uncertain causal pathways often without predefined outcomes calls for innovation in the use of complexity-aware approaches to evaluation. The papers in this special issue present rich experiences of authors working across sectors and geographies, employing methodological innovation and navigating power as they reconcile tensions. They illustrate the challenges with (i) evaluating performance to meet accountability demands while fostering learning for adaptation; (ii) evaluating prospective theories of change while capturing emergent change; (iii) evaluating internal relational dimensions while measuring external development outcomes; (iv) evaluating across scales: from measuring local level end impact to understanding contributions to systems level change. Taken as a whole, the issue illustrates how the research for development evaluation field is maturing through the experiences of a growing and diverse group of researchers and evaluators as they shift from using narrow accountability instruments to appreciating emergent causal pathways within research for development.

show abstract