This document summarizes Boru Douthwaite's presentation on using theories of change (ToC) to leverage impact. It discusses two interventions: 1) Participatory Innovation Histories which worked well for research learning but less for changing practice, and 2) PIPA (Planning Impact Pathways for Agricultural Research) which uses tools from program evaluation to develop impact pathways and network maps to surface strategies for achieving a shared vision. PIPA was found to provide a language and concepts to link research to impact and build support coalitions. The document discusses next steps like reviving PIPA and measuring its impacts.

1. Using ToC to lever
change
Boru Douthwaite
STEPS/CDI Seminar, University of Sussex, 25 April, 2013

2. Impact pathways matter

3. Mechanism
• Using Realistic Evaluation definition (Pawson and Tilley, 1997)
• The mechanism
– Make ‘theory in use’ explicit
– Reflect on its validity
– Narrow gap with ‘espoused theory’ (Argyris & Schön 1974)
– Start to change mental models
Outcome
Mechanism
Intervention
Triggers
Context
Intervention triggers a mechanism to produce impact in a context

4. The mechanism through a systems
perspective

5. Intervention 1: Innovation Histories

7. Participatory Innovation Histories

8. Experience with Innovation Histories
• Worked well 
– Researcher learning
– Depth of insight
– Theory building
– Triggers other mechanisms
• Didn’t work so well 
– Changing practice
– Shared learning
• Insight
– Politics
– Rear view mirror smaller than windscreen

9. CPWF’s need for ex-ante impact
assessment

10. Intervention 2: PIPA
• Innovation histories written from the future
• Synthesis of concepts and tools from:
– Program Evaluation
 Renger and Titcomb (2002) – problem trees
 Chen (2005) – program theory
 Mayne (2004) - performance stories
 Douthwaite et al. (2003 and 2007) – impact pathway evaluation in
integrated weed management in Northern Nigeria
– Innovation histories
 Douthwaite and Ashby, 2005
– Appreciative Inquiry
 Whitney and Trosten-Bloom, 2003
– Social network analysis
 Cross and Parker, 2004; Rick Davies

11. Workshop
Road Map
1. Problem Tree
2. Outcomes Tree
3. Vision
6. Project impact pathways
4. "Now"
network map
What the project should help
achieve
Current
arrangement of
actors working on
PH in Cambodia
Helps understand case rationale
and what needs to change
ProblemanalysisIntegration
5. Key changes required
to achieve Vision
Stakeholderanalysis
The changes the project can help achieve, who will change and
project strategies to bring changes about
PIPA Process to surface and communicate
project impact pathways in Vietnam

12. Constructing a Problem
Tree

13. Drawing
Network Maps of
who is funding,
carrying out the
research,
scaling-out and
scaling-up
project outputs

14. Adding ‘Power
Towers’ to
show differing
influence of
actors

15. Developing a Scaling Strategy
(Table 2)
Describe the most
important
differences between
the two networks
Why is the change
important to
achieve the vision?
What are the
project’s strategies
for achieving the
change?
Exercise
6a

16. Outcome Logic Model from Workshop
Outputs

17. Reflection on PIPA
• What works well
– Space for reflection
– Provides a language, set of concepts to link research to
impact
– Built a contending coalition
 Happy synchronicity
• What didn’t work so well
– Making OLMs a contract requirement

18. It is all about the timing …

19. Next Steps
• Revive PIPA
– Web site
– Community of practice
• Measuring the impacts of PIPA
• In CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems
– PIPA adapted
• In STEPS?
• STEPS/CDI – AAS Collaboration?