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
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
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
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
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
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?
Notas do Editor
Because we rarely look at the whole system, the majority of our efforts tend to focus on problems which are merely symptoms of deeper directions in society and nature relationships. In this regard Voros (2005) reminds us of the metaphorical ‘‘iceberg’’ model of systems thinking (Figure 1), which depicts problems perceived in the outside world as simply the visible part of a much larger and mostly-hidden ‘‘iceberg’’. ‘‘Patterns and trends’’ are depicted as submerged just below the water-line, while the underlying system ‘‘drivers’’ or system ‘‘structure’’ that reflect the predominant social paradigm are considered an even deeper and unseen part of the iceberg.
2005Program with unrealistic impact claimsWanting to show how it would reach themFrom pilot projects