The honest truth is that I don\u2019t really have a \u2018theory of change\u2019, indeed I try to avoid the term. This is for the same reason that I try to avoid \u2018message\u2019: a debate about which is the right \u2018message\u2019, or which is the right \u2018theory of change\u2019, tends to make you go in circles. So my theory about theories of change, is that organisations or groups, or more depressingly, individuals, who spend time looking for the right theory of change, are probably wasting their time.<\/p>\n
This of course excludes academics who teach or study theories of change. For them it is a necessity. After all, history would be awfully dull without the possibility of attribution error. Likewise, the companies who make a business of selling \u2018Theories of Change\u2019 as methods. You can find them via Google, although other search engines are available.<\/p>\n
For \u201cmessage\u201d I suggest looking at components of communication that can be assessed more precisely and objectively \u2013 eg CAMPCAT<\/a>. This is because when it comes to the sort of communication assumed by the term \u2018message\u2019 in change-seeking discussions, the important factors concern effectiveness, and the important factors are those which you can plan, control or at least influence, and most of those are not \u2018the message\u2019 itself.<\/p>\n There are endless \u2018theories of change\u2019 and the more general ones are the sorts of things Aristotle and Plato may have argued about. Does change come when elites lead, or when the masses move ?<\/p>\n Unless the purpose or other context is more specific \u2013 for instance these<\/a> on peace-making \u2013 the grander theories of change are not really applicable to campaigns. The useful literature about change, including \u2018theories of change\u2019 used in a pramgatically wide way, is vast. For example this sample<\/a> by my friends at Fairsay.<\/p>\n But if I did have a theory of change for campaigns it might be a bit like this: these things will help.<\/p>\n This might sound like a statement of the obvious but campaign groups are often to be found repeating the same mistakes over and over. They try and try again, which is a requirement for #1 but for many reasons, which may include being very intuitive, ethically driven and otherwise mission focused and prone to the commitment effect, and indeed the influence of \u2018theories of change\u2019 which hold that they are part of an insurgent uprising against overwhelming forces, they learn nothing from failure. Rather it is taken as a validation that they are on the true right course.<\/p>\n Others do #2 and can become besotted with one methodology to the point that like the proverbial man with just a hammer, \u2018every problem looks like a nail\u2019. So my next point would be:<\/p>\n In addition:<\/p>\n Finally, campaigns are a form of public politics, mostly operating outside formal politics. The boundary between the two is complex and contested \u2013 see for example the UK debates about the \u2018Gagging Law<\/a>\u2019 which restricts NGO campaigning in the months before an election. At root, that controversy is about representation in political life \u2013 do people have a right to organise and represent themselves to exert influence over how their society works, or is this something that only the formal political class have the right to do ? In that case, the freedoms of NGOs have become entangled<\/a> in the same issue that faced attempts to organise labour in the Nineteenth Century. This question of contested legitimacy is one that will face the \u201cvoluntary sector\u201d in many countries.<\/p>\n Sometimes campaigns lead and initiate politcal change, especially where politics becomes a fight for \u2018the middleground\u2019, focused on fewer and fewer \u2018issues\u2019. By excluding other public concerns, such politics positively encourages the emergence of campaigns that address those \u2018issues\u2019.<\/p>\n The trend to politicians believing, or pretending to believe, that the public interest can always be best served by leaving as much as possible to the private sector, ie \u2018the market\u2019, is motivated by a desire to be \u2018business friendly\u2019, attract investment and promote economic growth.<\/p>\n This has two major effects on the context for campaigns. On the one hand it opens the way for campaign groups to exert more influence than before, by focusing consumer opinion and action on sensitive commercial interests (eg Greenpeace\u2019s consumer campaigns on tuna<\/a> and palm oil): campaigns and business change then lead, create norms and standards, and politics follow up behind, sometimes eventually making the standards statutory. On the other, it further marginalises formal politics, and will tend to increase public trust in NGOs, and some businesses, while politicians appear less and less relevant.<\/p>\n Politicians show some signs of realising that they must reverse this process. Remarkably, China may be where the primacy of economic growth is most bluntly curtailed<\/a> in the public interest, incentivised by the need to control air pollution. \u00a0Problems like climate change though, everywhere require collaboration and cooperation that in turn need governance, and that cannot be delivered by a free market alone.<\/p>\n The media exerts a simplifying effect on this political-social-campaign interaction because it also focuses attention, especially its own. News media seeks out the biggest actor or loudest voice \u2013 a single actor bias \u2013 to tell a story. It has room for only one global threat at a time, and rationalises the downplaying of others in the same way that an individual is susceptible to single-action bias. Devices such as filters that identify what is \u2018trending\u2019 on twitter, and public opinion polls that identify a \u2018no.1 concern\u2019, exert a similar effect.<\/p>\n These interactions are too complex to be captured in any single \u2018theory of change\u2019 but for practical purposes, campaign groups can develop a model of achieving change that works best for them, taking into account their culture, community, brand, ambitions and the situations they face. I don\u2019t guarantee that following my steps will lead to success but it might help tip the odds in your favour.<\/p>\n If it helps, I\u2019ve put a pdf of an Outline Campaign Development Plan here<\/a>, taken from How to Win Campaigns<\/em>.<\/a><\/p>\n [First published as an article in Campaign Strategy Newsletter<\/em> 89, 2014 – you can sign up at this website (free)]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The honest truth is that I don\u2019t really have a \u2018theory of change\u2019, indeed I try to avoid the term. This is for the same reason that I try to avoid \u2018message\u2019: a debate about which is the right \u2018message\u2019, … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n