Please note: (1) This document is not yet intended for general
circulation. It is made available here to those of you who have offered to
comment on the contents. (2) The version that is available here is under
continual revision. If you are reviewing this document, please compare the date
on the version you have with the date of the version available here. This
version is likely to be the most up to date, (3) Reviewers names will be
included under Acknowledgements, unless I am requested not to do so
Abstract:
Origins: In two papers produced in 2002 and 2003 I have
outlined some of the major problems involved in trying to represent, and thus
plan and evaluate, complex development interventions. The first paper, called
"Scale, Complexity and the Representation of Theories of Change (Davies, 2004,
2005), was presented in the 2002 European Evaluation Society conference in
Seville. The second paper, called "Network Perspectives In The Evaluation Of
Development Interventions: More Than A Metaphor", was presented at the 2003
EDIAIS Conference: New Directions In Impact Assessment For Development: Methods
And Practice (Davies 2003). Both papers have argued for a move away from linear
representations of development interventions, to more network based
perspectives. Both papers examine problems with existing methods and the
opportunities and implications of a different approach.
Ambitions: This paper attempts to move forward with the
development of some practical means of operationalising a network perspective.
It is based on two sources of experience. One is the body of methods for
representing and analysing networks, developed in the field of Social Network
Analysis (Scott, 2000; Freeman, 2004). The other is my own consulting
experience with international aid organisations over the last few years;
especially since the Seville paper was presented. In this paper I have drawn on
applications developed in the course of program monitoring and evaluation work
carried out in Ghana, Vietnam, Australia and the United Kingdom. The
proposals made in this paper take the Logical Framework as their starting
point. This is because within the field of development aid the Logical
Framework is a common and familiar reference point for how project designs can
be represented, and as such can provide readers with a recognisable starting
point . However, please note that the use of the network frameworks described
here do not require the use of the Logical Framework. Another early warning
may be appropriate. This paper presents a number of related frameworks, which
can be used to represent different kinds of network perspectives. What is not
being provided is one new Network Framework, taking the place of the one old
Logical Framework. As will be shown, the use of a range of frameworks can
provide flexibility in the focus of attention, from the very micro to the very
macro, in different settings. At the same time, overlap in the contents of
these frameworks enables them to be linked together into one larger network of
frameworks. In effect, what has been developed is a modular approach to the
representation of theories of change, which provides both scalability and
sensitivity to specific circumstances. How to reconcile these two challenges
was the focal concern of the Seville paper.
Approach This paper has eight sections. In section two the
implicit social and network structure of the Logical Framework is drawn out, as
a means of locating the approach in familiar territory, and thus providing a
bridge to a network perspective. In section three this analysis generates three
generic types of network perspectives that have different implications for
evaluation activities. This section in turn provides an introduction into a
more complex set of representations. Section four details the variety of ways
in which networks can be represented by the use of different types of matrices,
and how they can then be used as modules, to build larger-scale
representations. Section five introduces the idea of a public library of
modular matrices, and provides a range of examples representing different types
of networks: within organisations, in their relationships with others, and
beyond. Section six compares the modular matrix approach with four other
developments that have some similarities in terms of the type of analysis made,
and tools used. Section seven provides a resume, summarising the types of
evaluation issues associated with the different uses of modular matrices.
Section eight looks into the future, at the further development of this
approach, and how it can be promoted.
