Causal pathways

Theme type:
Cross-cutting themes

A causal pathways perspective on evaluation focuses on understanding how, why, and under what conditions change happens or has happened.

It is used to understand the interconnected chains of causal links that lead to a range of outcomes and impacts. These causal pathways are likely to involve multiple actors, contributing factors, events, and actions, not only the activities associated with the program, project, or policy being evaluated or its stated objectives.

Overview

Rather than being a specific approach, causal pathways evaluation might be best understood as a perspective on evaluation, which can draw on a combination of existing evaluation approaches, processes and methods. It uses a range of types of evidence, especially participant voices and narratives, and emphasises the use of participatory processes.

Causal pathways evaluation, as understood by the Causal Pathways Initiative, can be distinguished by the following features:

  • Addressing power and inclusion: Seeking to use inclusive and empowering processes, from design through to the use of findings, that respect, support, and prioritise the values and perspectives of people who are directly affected by a program, system and/or contexts, with particular attention to usually excluded interests.
  • Valuing actors’ narratives: Paying serious attention to how people who are directly affected by a program, system, or context understand how changes have or have not come about and how they value those changes. Actors can include participants, on-the-ground program staff, implementing partners, and others contributing to or impacted by changes.
  • Articulating explicit causal pathways: Identifying intermediate outcomes, causal mechanisms, non-linear, plural, and sometimes contested pathways to change, and the interactions between factors that influence whether change occurs.
  • Paying attention to a range of outcomes and impacts, both positive and negative: Not only explicitly intended outcomes and impacts.
  • Understanding contextual variation: Identifying and describing differences in how interventions work in different contexts and for different people. Relevant contextual factors may include previous or concurrent interventions, power relationships, and socio-economic and demographic characteristics.
  • Using an iterative, bricolage approach to evaluation design: Combining different methods and approaches to address specific questions and ensure rigour and using data and learning to inform subsequent data collection and analysis.
  • Drawing on a range of causal inference strategies: Supporting causal inference in complex systems through a range of causal inference strategies.
  • Taking a complexity-appropriate approach to evaluation quality and rigour: Identifying and working with appropriate quality criteria such as reasoning, credibility, responsiveness, utilisation, and transferability.

The causal pathways perspective on evaluation builds on the concepts of ‘causal pathways’, ‘outcome pathways’ and ‘impact pathways’ which have been used in various sectors to articulate the causal chains that can lead to particular outcomes and impacts. These have been used to articulate and empirically investigate causal chains from interventions to results (either intended or unintended) and from different contributory factors that interact to generate different results (both positive and negative).

The importance of power and inclusion in processes and analysis

The causal pathways perspective pays explicit attention to power and inclusion in relation to understanding causal pathways and undertaking evaluation. Power dynamics that influence change can involve different forms of power held by different types of actors. Visible forms of power can be held by formal position holders and institutions and enshrined in rules and regulations. Hidden power allows actors to set agendas behind the scenes and so decide on who can or cannot be part of decision-making. Invisible forms of power work at the psychosocial realm, are derived from relationships, customs, traditions, rules, regulations, and practices and determine who can and who cannot meaningfully engage.

A causal pathways perspective aims to understand the power dynamics that influence how and whether change occurs. It includes the perspectives and experiences of traditionally under-represented interests, including natural as well as human systems. This builds a deeper understanding of the factors generating or inhibiting changes along causal pathways, including changes in mindsets, beliefs and practices. Using inclusive and empowering processes that respect, support and prioritize the activities and voices of local actors enhances the quality of the evaluation and supports the use of evaluation findings.

Related evaluation approaches, methods, and processes

Causal pathways evaluations can draw on a range of approaches, methods and processes to develop an overall design. The following list shows some relevant approaches and methods, with links to more detailed information.

Approaches

  • Causal link monitoring

    Causal link monitoring (CLM) is an approach to designing and implementing monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems that prioritise information for managing adaptively in complexity.

  • Contribution analysis

    Contribution analysis is an evaluation approach that provides a systematic way of understanding an intervention's contribution to observed outcomes or impacts.

  • Outcome harvesting

    Outcome Harvesting collects (“harvests”) evidence of what has changed (“outcomes”) and, working backwards, determines whether and how an intervention has contributed to these changes.

  • Outcome Mapping

    Outcome Mapping is an approach that helps unpack an initiative’s theory of change and provides a framework to collect data on the immediate, basic changes that lead to longer, more transformative change.

  • Qualitative comparative analysis

    Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is an evaluation approach that supports causal reasoning by examining how different conditions contribute to an outcome.

  • Qualitative impact assessment protocol

    The Qualitative Impact Assessment Protocol (QuIP) is an impact evaluation approach that collects and documents narrative causal statements directly from those affected by an intervention.

  • Realist evaluation

    Realist evaluation aims to identify the underlying generative causal mechanisms that explain how outcomes were caused and how context influences these.

Methods

Understand the situation

Understand the situation

A situation analysis examines the current situation and the factors contributing to it. This might include identification and analysis of needs, resources, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and/or power analysis.

  • Causal mapping

    ​Causal mapping helps make sense of the causal claims (about "what causes what") that people make in interviews, conversations, and documents.

  • Power analysis

    A power analysis identifies the main types of power in a system of interest.

Develop a design for the evaluation

Develop a design for the evaluation

An evaluation design sets out how data will be collected and analysed in terms of the methods used and the research design.

  • Iterative evaluation design

    An iterative evaluation design begins with an initial design or process from which a more detailed design is created iteratively as the evaluation progresses in response to emerging findings and information needs.

  • Joint evaluation design

    A collaboration is involved in designing the evaluation, which might involve an implementing agency, an evaluation team and/or a community working together.

  • Bricolage evaluation design

    A bricolage evaluation design flexibly combines and adapts various data collection and analysis methods, approaches, and conceptual and value frameworks to suit the specific context of the evaluation.

Determine what constitutes high quality evaluation

Determine what constitutes high quality evaluation
For any evaluation, there needs to be clarity about what will be considered a quality and ethical evaluation.
  • Rigour

    Rigour involves using systematic, transparent processes to produce valid findings and conclusions. There are significant differences in what this is understood to mean in evaluation.

  • Transparency

    Transparency refers to the evaluation processes and conclusions being able to be scrutinised.

Understand causes

Understand causes of outcomes and impacts
Collect and analyse data to answer causal questions about what has produced outcomes and impacts that have been observed.
  • Process tracing

    Process tracing is a case-based and theory-driven method for causal inference that applies specific types of tests to assess the strength of evidence for concluding that an intervention has contributed to changes that have been observed or measured.

Resources

The Causal Pathways Initiative has produced and curated a number of resources.

Key resources

Curated resources

More resources

  • Search all resources related to Causal Pathways
    Use this pre-filtered search page to find many resources, created and curated by the Causal Pathways Initiative, relating to tasks, approaches and methods relevant to Causal Pathways evaluation.

About the Causal Pathways Initiative

  • Causal Pathways Initiative project

    The Causal Pathways Initiative seeks to help philanthropy and other funders open up the black box of strategy and systems change.

  • Causal Pathways Initiative partner page
    The Causal Pathways Initiative was established to connect experiences and build insights about using causal pathways analysis, especially with complex systems change interventions.

Last updated:

Expand to view all resources related to 'Causal pathways'

'Causal pathways' is referenced in:

Back to top