Multiple Theories of Change for innovation governance

The Theory of Change approach aims to clarify the underlying logic of an intervention by first identifying the problem addressed and the desired outcome, and then backwards mapping the actions taken and the expected results and outcomes. In so doing, it aims to simplify the expression of intermediate goals and indicators and provide a common reference for the participants and stakeholders of the intervention itself. As such, it is similar to corporate ‘mission statements’ in that it aims to provide a single, unifying description of the what, why and how of an intervention. By framing the approach in terms of the ‘change’ required as a means of addressing a problem, Theory of Change is essentially a tool to frame innovation processes. Indeed, one of the goals of Theory of Change is to identify the mechanisms linking actions to results and outcomes, which in turn can be linked to different dimensions of innovation processes, from the technological to the social and behavioural. In this regard, Theory of Change serves as a tool to support the governance of innovation processes, aiding stakeholders in finding a common ground for consensus. This however opens up a possible issue in applying Theory of Change: does the simplified model accurately reflect the various standpoints of stakeholders and the multiple dimensions of the innovation involved? Indeed, since Theory of Change is often defined and developed by ‘external’ stakeholders – often in the context of process evaluation – there is the risk that participants may not fully understand the concept despite the apparent simplicity of the approach. This may lead to relatively passive participation in the initial definition of the Theory of Change, with the hidden presence of ‘alternative’ theories that struggle to gain legitimacy. This chapter explores an attempt to embrace that risk as an opportunity, in an effort to support the emergence of different Theories of Change so that stakeholders can transparently confront their different hypotheses and worldviews. The resolution of these differences was a question of the broader governance dynamic within different stakeholder communities rather than an exercise of ‘cleaning up’ the Theory of Change itself. The occasion to test this approach was provided by an EU-funded project – MUV: Mobility Urban Values – that involved experimenting with a game-based approach towards changing mobility behaviours in six European pilot contexts.