Between logframes and theory of change: reviewing debates and a practical experience

References

• ActKnowledge and the Aspen Institute. 2003. Theory of Change. Guided Example of Project Superwoman. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, A. 2004. Theory of Change as a Tool for Strategic Planning. A Report on Early Experiences. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, A. 2006. The Community Builder's Approach to Theory of Change. A Practical Guide to Theory Development. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell, R. 2002. Project Design Handbook. Atlanta: CARE.
   Google Scholar
• CARE. 2012. Peacebuilding with Impact. Defining Theories of Change. London: CARE.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H., and A. Anderson. 2004. Theories of Change and Logic Models: Telling Them Apart. Atlanta, GA: American Evaluation Association.
   Google Scholar
• Connell, J. P., and A. C. Kubisch. 1998. Applying A Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Coryn, C., L. Noakes, C. Westine, and D. Schroter. 2011. “A Systematic Review of Theory-Driven Evaluation Practice from 1990 to 2009.” American Journal of Evaluation 32 (2): 199–226. doi: 10.1177/1098214010389321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cracknell, B. 1989. “Evaluating the Effectivnesss of the Logical Framework in Practice.” Project Appraisal 4 (3): 163–167. doi: 10.1080/02688867.1989.9726727
   Google Scholar
• Dar, S., and B. Cooke. 2008. “Introduction: The New Development Management.” In The New Development Management, edited by S. Dar and B. Cooke, 1–17. London: Zed Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dearden, P. and B. Kowalski. 2003. “Programme and Project Cycle Management (PPCM): Lessons From South and North.” Development in Practice 13 (5): 501–14. doi: 10.1080/0961452032000125875
   Google Scholar
• DFID. 2011. Guidance on Using the Revised Logical Framework DFID Practice Paper. London: Department for International Development (DFID).
   Google Scholar
• Dutch Consortium for Rehabilitation. 2013. “Knowledge Network.” Accessed June 3, 2013. http://dcr-africa.org/en/KnowledgeNetwork/
   Google Scholar
• Eyben, R., T. Kidder, J. Rowlands, and A. Bronstein. 2008. “Thinking About Change for Development Practice: A Case Study from Oxfam GB.” Development in Practice 18 (2): 201–12. doi: 10.1080/09614520801898996
   Google Scholar
• Green, D. 2011. “What does a Theory of Change Look Like?” Accessed June 21, 2013. www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=5864
   Google Scholar
• INTRAC. 2012. Theory of Change: What's It All About?” Ontrac 51. Oxford: INTRAC.
   Google Scholar
• James, C. 2011. Theory of Change Review. A Report Commissioned by Comic Relief. London: Comic Relief.
   Google Scholar
• Mosse, D. 2012. “In Defense of Logic Models.” Accessed June 5, 2013. http://createquity.com/2012/06/in-defense-of-logic-models.html
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, P. 2007. “Theory-Based Evaluation: Reflections Ten Years on.” New Directions for Evaluation 2007 (114): 63–81. doi: 10.1002/ev.225
   Google Scholar
• Scriven, M. 1998. “Minimalist Theory: The Least Theory that Practice Requires.” American Journal of Evaluation 19 (2): 57–70. doi: 10.1177/109821409801900105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, R. and R. Gill. 2007. “Design for Development: A Review of Emerging Methodologies.” Development in Practice 17 (2): 220–230. doi: 10.1080/09614520701195964
   Google Scholar
• Stein, D., and C. Valters. 2012. Understanding Theory of Change in International Development. London: The Asia Foundation/The Justice and Security Research Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Stufflebeam, D., and A. Shinkfield. 2007. Evaluation Theory, Models, & Applications. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• The Knowledge Brokers' Forum. 2013. “Theory of change vs Logframes.” Accessed June 2, 2013. www.knowledgebrokersforum.org/wiki/item/theory-of-change-vs-logframes
   Google Scholar
• UNDP. 2009. Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. New York: United Nation Development Programme (UNDP).
   Google Scholar
• Veselý, A. 2008. “Problem Tree: A Problem Structuring Heuristic.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 2 (2): 68–80.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, I. 2012. Review of the Use of 'Theory of Change' in International Development. Review Report. London: Department For International Development (DFID).
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, I., and Z. Stephenson. 2012. “Appendix 3. Examples of Theories of Change.” In Review of the Use of 'Theory of Change' in International Development. Review Report, edited by I. Vogel, 82–83. London: Department For International Development (DFID).
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, T., L. Bornstein, and J. Chapman. 2006. The Aid Chain. Coercion and Commitment in Development NGOs. Warwickshire: Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. 1997. “How can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway?” Evaluation Review 21 (4): 501–24. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9702100405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. 2007. “Theory-Based Evaluation: Past, Present and Future.” New Directions for Evaluation 2007 (114): 68–81.
   Google Scholar