THEORY OF CHANGE AND LOGICAL FRAMEWORK: A COMPARATIVE MEASURE FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION PRACTICES
Abstract
Abstract. This article is a brief study of the advantages and disadvantages of Theory of Change (ToC) and the Logical Framework (Log Frame) based on literature; a comparative approach. The later has a long historical stand in the development practices while the former was formed as supposed to answer the shortcomings of the Log Frame. By comparing both strengths and weaknesses, the finding argues that ToC is strongly considered to have a more certain degree of advantages rather than the M&E in view of development agencies especially NGOs in the practice of monitoring and evaluation of development practices. M&E, in particular, gave birth to ToC in pursue of answering the Log Frame’s current shortcoming. ToC has gained positive stand in the realm of international development by addressing at least three main features: participation, flexibility and the dynamic of development deliverance and accountability.
Abstrak. Artikel ini adalah studi singkat tentang kelebihan dan kekurangan dari Theory of Change (ToC) dan Logical Framework (Log Frame) berdasarkan literatur; pendekatan komparatif. Yang kedua memiliki pendirian historis yang panjang dalam praktik pembangunan, sementara yang pertama dibentuk untuk menjawab kekurangan Log Frame. Dengan membandingkan kekuatan dan kelemahan, temuan ini berpendapat bahwa ToC secara kuat dianggap memiliki tingkat keuntungan yang lebih pasti daripada M&E dalam pandangan lembaga pembangunan terutama LSM dalam praktik pemantauan dan evaluasi praktik pembangunan. Monitoring & Evaluation secara khusus melahirkan ToC dalam rangka menjawab kekurangan Log Frame saat ini. ToC telah mendapatkan posisi positif di bidang pembangunan internasional dengan mengatasi setidaknya tiga fitur utama: partisipasi, fleksibilitas dan dinamika pembebasan dan akuntabilitas pembangunan.
Keywords
References
Anderson, A. (2005). The Community Builder’s Approach to Theory of Change: A Practical Guide to Theory Development. New York: Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. Retrieved from Aspen Institute Website: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/roundtable%20on%20community%20change/rcccommbuildersapproach.pdf
Bakewell, O. & Garbutt, A. (2005). The Use and Abuse of the Logical Framework Approach. A Review of International Development NGOs’ Experiences, retrieved from INTRAC website: http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/518/The-Use-and-Abuse-of-the-Logical-Framework-Approach.pdf
Cracknell, B. (1989). Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Logical Framework System in Practice. Project Appraisal, 4:3, 163-167, DOI: 10.1080/02688867.1989.9726727
Bell, S. (2000). Logical Frameworks, Aristotle and Soft Systems: A Note on the Origins, Values and Uses of Logical Frameworks, in Reply to Gasper. Public Administration and Development, 20(1), 29-31. doi:10.1002/1099-162X(200002)20:1<29::AID-PAD98>3.0.CO;2-2
Connell, J. P. & Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives. Retrieved from SEA CHANGE Website: http://www.seachangecop.org/node/217
Dale, R. (2003). The Logical Framework: An Easy Escape, A Straitjacket, or A Useful Planning Tool? Development in Practice, 13(1).
Funnell, S. & Rogers, P. (2011). Purposeful Programme Theory. Effective use of Theories of Change and Logic Models, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.
Gasper D. (1997). Logical Frameworks: A Critical Assessment. Working Paper 278. Institute of Social Studies: The Hague.
Gasper, D. (2000). Evaluating the ‘Logical Framework Approach’ towards Learning-Oriented Development Evaluation. Public Administration and Development, 20(1), 17-28. doi:10.1002/1099-162X(200002)20:1<17::AID-PAD89>3.0.CO;2-5
James, C. (2011). Theory of Change Review. A Report Commissioned by Comic Relief, Comic Relief. Retrieved from Monitoring and Evaluation Website: http://mande.co.uk/2012/uncategorized/comic-relief-theory-of-change-review/
OECD, (2005). Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action, Paris. Retrieved from OECD: http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
Stein, D. & Valters, C. (2012). Understanding Theory of Change’ in International Development: A Review of Existing Knowledge. JSRP Paper 1, London: Justice and Security Research Programme and The Asia Foundation.
Stern, E., Stame, N., Mayne, J., Forss, K., Davies, R. & B. Befani. (2012). Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluations. Retrieved from DFID: https://www.gov.uk/h?q=Broadening+the+range+of+designs+and+methods+for+impact+evaluations.+
Strathern, M. (2000). Introduction: New Accountabilities, in Marilyn Strathern (ed.) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy (pp. 1-18). (EASA Series). London: Routledge.
Valters, C. (2014). Theories of Change in International Development: Communication, Learning, or Accountability? JSRP Paper 17, London: Justice and Security Research Programme and the Asia Foundation.
Vogel, I, (2012). Review the Use of Theory of Change in International Development. Review Report, Department of International Development: United Kingdom.
DOI: 10.15408/empati.v8i1.14331
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 M Kholis Hamdy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
