Theory of change = strategy
What to say when someone asks for your ToC
I’m no fan of the phrase “theory of change”. As someone keen to see campaigners develop and become more confident, I worry that the phrase imposes mystery and confusion to a key part of campaign development when demystification should be our aim.
After all, campaign strategy development is tough and complex enough without the imposition of grandiose, academic-sounding concepts.
I’ve had a few campaigners tell me that upon hearing the phrase “theory of change” for the first time, they became daunted and overwhelmed. My experience was the same: I first heard it in a workshop session in about 2015 and it felt like I was being introduced to a new language.
It turns out that the phrase has its origins in the 20th century and, according to Wikipedia, took off in the 1990s in fields like public policy. But I don’t care about that. I care about making campaigning easier and accessible for people to pick up and become good at.
To that end, I’d like to reassure you that when someone asks for your theory of change, they are just asking about your campaign strategy.
Put even more simply, they want to know how you expect to achieve your objective.
A theory is a set of explanations and expectations about how something works. So a theory of change is a set of expectations about how a campaign objective will be met. And to test your theory of change you will need to run experiments - in other words, run your campaign. You could apply this concept to an organisation, asking what the theory of change is for the organisation’s success. Looking at this level you’d replace a campaign objective with the organisation’s mission, and replace specific campaign strategies with broader strategic themes that would apply to everything the organisation does.
See how, even in this last paragraph, treating strategy as “theory of change” can turn a straightforward idea into waffle?
This is probably why I and so many other campaigners have been confronted with the phrase “theory of change” in a funding document or internal campaign planning template, feeling like we need to produce something with the elegance of Darwinian evolution or the laws of motion.
In reality, all this is asking for is your strategy. Or strategies.
And strategy is how.
Objectives are what, and strategy is how.
So if, for example, you’re campaigning to get a company to make a 100% renewable energy by 2030 commitment by the end of the year, and the ways you plan to do that are by engaging and lobbying staff closest to where the decision will be made, and generating peer pressure from other companies in the same industry, and highlighting the financial and reputational risks of the company falling behind their rivals, and building support for the commitment among customers of the company, then this is your theory of change:
By engaging and lobbying staff closest to where the decision will be made, and generating peer pressure from other companies in the same industry, and highlighting the financial and reputational risks of the company falling behind their rivals, and building support for the commitment among customers of the company, we will get our target to make a 100% renewable energy by 2030 commitment by the end of the year.
The template for this is: by doing the strategy, and the other strategy, and the other strategy, and the other strategy, we will meet our objective. You should be able to copy and paste it for your own campaigns, and add or subtract the number of strategies it includes to suit your campaign and how you intend to deliver it.
There are many ways in which we can make campaign planning, and the documenting of it, simpler, easier and less scary for campaigners to deal with. I’d love to see the phrase “theory of change” a little bit less often, substituted for a simple “Strategies” section in a template, or the question “How are the ways you will win?” being asked. If the phrase “theory of change” still needs to be used, maybe organisations and funders could consider at least demystifying it a bit by explaining or using boilerplate text to show that all you’re looking for is an explanation of the ways the campaigner believes they can win.
After all, we are sorely lacking clarity and focus in the world of campaigning. I have a lot more to say about how infrequently a campaigner can clearly explain what it is they’re trying to achieve and how. I don’t think we do ourselves any favours when we use phrases such as “theory of change” when getting campaigners to explain themselves, as it’s a recipe for unnecessary elaboration and semi- or pseudo-strategic waffle.
And for all you campaigners, especially relatively junior campaigners, reading this, just know that when someone asks for your theory of change, all they want to know is how you think you’ll win. Tell them, using as few words as possible, what the strategies are that you’re using to pursue your objective.