Moving on from logical frameworks to find the ‘missing middle’ in international development programmes

Theory-driven approaches to evaluation are increasingly employed in international development programmes to assess how programmes achieve outcomes–planned and unplanned. While the logical framework has long been used in international development, several leading international organisations are turning to theory-of-change (TOC) and realist approaches. For development practitioners, the nomenclature and process of constructing programme theory can seem daunting and the added value unclear. Using a real-world case study, this paper aims to demystify the terminology behind three theory-driven approaches (i.e. the logical framework, TOC and realist approaches) and address questions of why and how theory-driven evaluation can be incorporated into practice to provide a more informed and nuanced understanding of how programmes ‘work’. Using a nutrition case study, we highlight the key differences and commonalities between each approach and illustrate the process of constructing programme theory for each approach. A combination of the TOC and realist approaches is then explored to identify the added benefit to a combined approach in constructing programme theory. The combination of approaches provides a deeper knowledge of context and mechanisms required for change. Five guiding principles are identified to facilitate in the application of this combined approach