3.2 Theoretical Framework
3.1.4 Theory of Change
The third theory used in this study is the Theory of Change. Though in recent years there have been various evolutionary changes to the Theory of Change (ToC), its root is traced to the United States in the 1990s, when it was mainly used to improve evaluation theory and practice in the field of community development (Stein and Valters 2012, p.3). Since its inception, ToC is reported to have evolved into two streams of development and social programme practice:
evaluation and informed social practice (Ibid). The evaluation perspective involves using ToC
for programme evaluation analysis. On the other hand, its application in the development field is traced back to the 1970s tradition of logic planning models used by practitioners to consciously reflect on and/or develop informed social practices in community development (Stein and Valters 2012, p.3).
Different scholars conceptualise ToC differently, though they all seem to point to a similar implicit meaning of the term. Weiss (1995) defines ToC as “a theory of how and why an initiative works” (Cited in Stein & Valters 2012, p.3). In a more detailed manner, a Theory of Change is described as a comprehensive description of how and why a desired change is needed in a particular context (Centre for Theory of Change). Theory of Change involves mapping out what is apparently missing in a particular programme or initiative that could have spurred the initiative to achieve a desired goal or intervention. It does this by first identifying what is desired in a certain situation and thereafter, identify all the conditions that must be met or put in place—and how these conditions causally relate to one another—for a certain goal or change to occur. It is mapped out in an Outcome Framework. The aim of the Outcome Framework is to provide the basis for identifying the type of intervention that will lead to the desired goal.
ToC approach provides an understanding of how change actually happens through an intervention.
In a nutshell, developing a Theory of Change involves identifying what you do, who your action targets for results, reasons and the methods of doing it, as well as what you expect to achieve from performing the action. Theory of Change is useful in clarifying how change happens, factors that account for change, resources needed to create change, the right questions to ask, what data to collect, as well as what decisions are likely to yield better outcomes.
The different explanations offered to Theory of Change shows that it is not a theory in the real sense of theories. That is, it does not have an explanatory power to illustrate a social reality or a cause-effect relation. It also does not have specific variables that could be measured to explain a social reality. ToC rather describes “both a process and a product” (Vogel 2012, p.1). In other words, it involves applying certain procedural events of actions in order to arrive at a desired or premeditated outcome. The outcome is the Change. ToC seems to provide some models to achieving a real-life developmental plan. It has the capacity to be applied in various perspectives, depending on what is sought to be achieved. In other words, Theory of Change can be developed in multiple ways. In this study, the Theory of Change is useful in suggesting appropriate and effective ways of developing eThekwini municipal climate change adaptation
initiatives in a manner that responds to the vulnerability and adaptation needs of the local Black women to the impacts of flood disasters within the localities. According to Stein & Valster (2010, p.4), articulating a Theory of Change commonly “involves exploring a set of beliefs or assumptions about how change will occur”.
Researchers who have applied Theory of Change in gendered adaptation to climate impacts used it in a participatory model of climate governance (Fisher & Shakya 2018; Jost, Kristjanson
& Ferdous 2015). Through participatory model of governance practices, gendered voices, or the needs of the most marginalised groups of people, are included in climate change adaptation governance through participatory engagement of all the stakeholders involved. The stakeholders here imply the climate adaptation implementation officials who actually execute adaptation projects, as well as the beneficiaries of the initiatives, which in the context of this study, are the local Black women.
The challenge that may arise from such participatory engagement is how to enable local women to become involved in decision making or to influence practice. This is because there may be a technical knowledge gap between the highly informed policy practitioners and the local women, who may not have the required policy procedures and technical knowledge of how policy is implemented. However, such a barrier can be overcome through a representative form of participation, where the policy personnel partner with representative of different local women organisations, who should represent the interests and needs of their groups at the technical policy discussion fora. Such partnership has the capacity of enhancing knowledge co-production and social learning23, and consequently effect change in the day-to-day lives of the local women involved.
In the same vein, Fisher and Shakya (2018, p.8), note that participatory models of climate change adaptation governance at local level should involve elements of “collective organising”
through groups such as women’s saving groups, forest user groups etc., to strengthen their voices and amplify messages to decision makers. Participatory process can help to incorporate lived experiences of local women’s vulnerability and living conditions into different policy fora, to influence the kinds of decision made which involve the local people. This is also important as the local people, who pass through the experiences, are in the better position to express their adaptation needs and concerns. Though it can be a challenge for policy makers to
23 Social learning is learning that takes the form of a situated and collective engagement with others (Collins &
Ison, 2009; cited in Fisher & Shakya, 2018, p.8)
understand and respond appropriately to the people’s experiences, this process also seems to offer a vital opportunity for the policy makers to get in touch with the lived experiences of the people their policy seeks to impact. This approach can cause a transformative effect in a research engagement, such as this one.