Asset-Based Approaches by Garven Fiona;McLean Jennifer;Pattoni Lisa;

Author:Garven, Fiona;McLean, Jennifer;Pattoni, Lisa;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Dunedin Academic Press
Published: 2016-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

Theory of change

Asset-based approaches are focused on the relationships and connections between different variables, not the factors that separate them. As such, models of evaluation that are concerned with identifying and isolating variables in order to determine ‘attribution’ directly contrast with an asset-based approach. Theory of change (ToC) evaluation provides an alternative, where all partners and stakeholders involved in or affected by an intervention work together to establish the sequence of activities and outcomes required to bring about long-term change, as well as factors from the context which may influence this change. These are then mapped graphically, providing a representation of the ‘pathway for change’, or logic model. As Weiss (2001, p. 103) puts it:

[ToC] brings to the surface the underlying assumptions about why a programme will work. It then tracks those assumptions through the collection and analysis of data at a series of stages along the way to final outcomes. The evaluation then follows each step to see whether the events assumed to take place in the programme actually do take place.

It is proposed that ToC methodologies are particularly suitable for asset-based approaches given the iterative and participative nature of their processes. Hopkins and Rippon (2015) suggest that ToC towards asset-based practice has four key stages, which are not linear and can be undertaken according to the context of the initiative:

reframing towards assets;

recognising assets;

mobilising assets;

co-producing assets and outcomes

Contribution analysis (CA) is one member of the ToC ‘family’ that seeks to uncover the contribution an intervention is making to observed outcomes. It specifically does not attempt to ‘prove’ that an intervention caused outcomes to be achieved. Instead CA provides an increased understanding of why the observed results have or have not occurred, creating a ‘credible picture’ of the role an intervention plays alongside other factors (Mayne, 2001). Adopting this type of framework for evaluation enables those who are involved to develop a ToC collaboratively and to discuss openly and debate the process and progress throughout its duration (Wimbush et al., 2012).

The adoption of CA remains limited and as such the evidence with regards to its effectiveness in evaluating approaches (such as asset-based approaches) is slowly emerging. In a recent social services example, Stocks-Rankin (2015) suggests that, when using CA to understand complexity, there is a need to pay as much attention to the context as to the process of the work. As such, every attempt should be made to understand the system before and after the adoption of the approach so that any potential wider contextual or cultural changes can be documented. It follows that those who are using ToC approaches need to be careful to ensure that data collection can reflect these wider system changes.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.