Theory of Change in Complex Research for Development Programmes: Challenges and Solutions from the Global Challenges Research Fund

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.

Sustainability from Policy to Practice: Assessing the Impact of European Research and Innovation Frameworks on Circular Bioeconomy

“…Ultimately, the findings were framed within the ToC to facilitate our understanding of how inputs and activities converge to produce outputs, outcomes, and impacts within the realm of programs or projects [48,49]. In this manner, this strategic approach acted as a guiding beacon for our analysis and interpretations, enabling us to shed light on the interconnectedness among these constituent elements (inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts).…”

“…In other words, the ToC aids in understanding how and why a desired change is expected to occur, providing a systematic and visual representation of the relationships among inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts [48]. Evolving over time, it has become widely applied in diverse project and program evaluations, earning recognition as a valuable tool in sustainability research [49]. Using the ToC as a guiding framework, the analysis of the study's results on the impact of EU-funded R&I projects on sustainability through CBE practices gains a structured approach, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the pathways and mechanisms through which these projects contribute to the desired results and transformations.…”

How are Research for Development Programmes Implementing and Evaluating Equitable Partnerships to Address Power Asymmetries?

“…All the included cases had a theory of change that details how and why their research and other activities will generate outcomes and impact. Development was a funder requirement (see Chapman et al 2023). These theories of change contain all the expected components: activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts, the causal links that join them together and the underlying assumptions and risks (Goodier et al 2018).…”