BetterEvaluation Discussion Paper 1 is a thought piece written by Rhonda Schlangen and Jim Coe (independent consultants), members of the BetterEvaluation Community, and is intended to promote discussion. See the associated blog where you can post or view comments and responses, or listen to the Advocacy Iceberg podcast to hear Jim and Rhonda discuss this paper's themes.
The paper looks at how concepts of 'value' and 'results' are being applied to advocacy and campaigning and presents some alternative strategies for assessing advocacy.
The pilot episode of this new podcast by Jim Coe features an interview with Rhonda Schlangen, co author with Jim of The Value Iceberg, a BetterEvaluation Discussion Paper about how the important elements of advocacy tend to be intangible, under the surface, difficult to see, and how this affects how advocacy is seen and valued.
One common criticism of Theory of Change is that it is often used as a framework that fixes agreements rather than as a living, guiding tool that helps reflection and adaptation. However, formally agreed Theories of Change and realities on the ground can be very different. This policy brief explores this, and looks at the interactions between formally agreed Theories of Change and actual advocacy practice, within the context of a multi-country advocacy programme.
Blog4th December, 2014
Rhonda Schlangen and Jim Coe are independent consultants who work with social change organisations and funders to develop and evaluate advocacy and campaigns. In ‘The Value Iceberg’, a Discussion Paper published by BetterEvaluation, they look at how concepts of 'value' and 'results' are being applied to advocacy and campaigning and present some alternative strategies for assessing advocacy.