Implementing a theory of change approach to research sport participation programmes targeting ‘hard to reach’ groups

Abstract

A theory of change approach uses logic models to articulate how a programme is intended to operate and to test empirically whether and if so how it achieves its stated objectives. Theories of change have been used in evaluation research across a range disciplines and public policy domains. This article considers their application to research on sport and physical activity programmes. Applying a theory of change approach to the 'Calls for Action' programme, which seeks to increase participation among traditionally 'hard to reach' groups, the article explores the strengths and limitations of the method. It argues that a theory of change approach offers a rigorous and systematic way of framing and conducting research on interventions designed to encourage engagement in sport and other forms of physical activity. The article demonstrates how the approach can link project outcomes to wider programme and policy objectives. It also shows the value of making explicit and testing the assumptions which underpin interventions at both programme and project levels. By developing a theory of change approach policy makers and practitioners can clarify what they are seeking to achieve and promote a better understanding among partner organisations which have different priorities for and perspectives on an intervention. Future research could usefully focus on ways of extending the theory of change methods described in this article to test for causality and analyse the links between sport participation and wider policy goals, particularly health outcomes and improvements in well-being.

Untitled

“…The authors overarched sport and physical activity strategy within an English local authority area [1]. Other British scientists Bolton, Martin, Grace and Harris report on work undertaken with 11 projects funded through Sport Wales' 'Calls for Action' programme which sought to increase participation amongst traditionally hard to reach groups [2].…”

Theory of Change for Exploring the Potential Role of Rural Women’s Social Inclusion for Temporary Economic Recovery after COVID-19: Evidence from Awni Village in Egypt

“…ToC approach is a comprehensive illustration of how activities undertaken by an intervention are intended to function and to empirically evaluate whether, why, and how they achieve their ultimate outcomes [20]. It describes the change process by identifying the causal links in an initiative, including its short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes.…”

“…13 No. 1 (2021) interviews with exerts and holding workshops with leading players [19], Surveys [20,25], drawing on ethnographic studies that used surveys, interviews, and observation [21,22,26,27], Interviews with leading players [24], review of previous research and evaluation documents [24], as well as through the behavior observation [30].…”

“…With the basic needs met, and the sense of belonging enhanced comes self-esteem building. At this level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one seeks esteem for oneself, as well as respect from others [20]. Training and education were the method of fulfilling self-esteem.…”

Participatory action research to pilot a model of mental health service user involvement in an Ethiopian rural primary healthcare setting: study protocol

“…This gap can be balanced when ToC is combined with PAR, because the cyclical nature of PAR (iterative cycles of reflection, planning and acting), facilitates learning about what, how and why change is unfolding [103,108,111]. B) In practice, ToC and other programme theories may have a problem of reach, i.e., they do not explicitly consider issues of inclusivity and there is little acknowledgement of the way in which power operates to affect the building of collaborative capacity or how this notion needs to be addressed to enable stakeholder participation [106,107,117].Without such explicit consideration of power dynamics, ToC approaches may inadvertently reinforce a hierarchical relationship between stakeholders and privilege the perspectives of those in power (e.g., policy makers, professionals) and downplay or even disregard entirely the views of others(e.g., service-users) [116,118,119].…”