Ringhofer, L. & Kohlweg, K.
Compares the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) with the Theory of Change (ToC), concluding that LFA has over time turned into a donor-driven performance tool while ToC partly restores the analytical and participatory dimension.
This article critically reflects on two development programme planning methodologies: the dominant Logical Framework Approach (LFA) and the Theory of Change (ToC). It reviews their conceptual origins and outlines their commonalities, differences and challenges in day-to-day development practice. The article claims that while both approaches originate from the same family of programme theory, the LFA has over the years somehow lost its analytic lens to capture social change and become more of a donor-driven performance management tool. The ToC has restored some of these analytical and engagement aspects that the LFA approach was originally designed to elicit, but some of the practical challenges remain. The authors argue for a combined use of both methodologies, if held lightly and approached from a learning and not a compliance perspective.
Mənbə: Crossref (DOI meta verilənləri) — müəlliflərin dərc etdiyi orijinal xülasə.
Compares the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) with the Theory of Change (ToC), concluding that LFA has over time turned into a donor-driven performance tool while ToC partly restores the analytical and participatory dimension.
Bu məzmunu tamamladınız?