‘Theory of change’ — a better way for museums to think about impact
Two years working with public advocacy experts gave me a better model for museum and gallery impact planning than I saw in 20 years in museums. Theory of Change is the model museums need.
Problem
Museums today describe their impact in overreaching isolationist terms. This exhibition will create science literacy. This gallery will create artistic excellence.
In the early 00s I was trying to justify to funders the idea that primary school visits to the Natural History Museum would increase applications to science undergrad courses. I remember speeches at exhibition launches about increasing exam success. But as recent research in the UK shows, these claims aren’t supported by evidence.
Twitterati, commentators and museum directors alike all say that this shouldn’t be how museums are judged. But museums have promoted themselves this way for decades so it’s hard to reject judgement on those grounds.
I’d say this way of advocating is due to
- a reductionist attitude (a profession based on single objects as evidence for history is likely to see things in discrete chunks)
- arrogance (we are this important!)
- insecurity (are we good at all?)
- most of all as a response to a capitalist utilitarian attitude: only what can be measured, matters, and all that matters is the pipeline from education to economic productivity.
A different method — ‘Theory of Change’
Across the policy sector, in campaigning and political work, there’s a methodology used called Theory of Change. It’s a broad idea, and one that’s applied differently by different people (Museum learning objectives, anyone?):
A ‘theory of change’ explains how activities are understood to produce a series of results that contribute to achieving the final intended impacts. It can be developed for any level of intervention — an event, a project, a programme, a policy, a strategy or an organization.
Patricia Rogers for UNICEF, quoted by betterevaluation.org
It takes as a given that delivering on audacious missions is complex and intertwined with others. Indeed, the existence of a rich ecosystem of players is embedded in the model.
The basic logic is really simple; working backwards to define the conditions in which the goal you seek will simply ‘be’
- Define your end goal — what is the eventual outcome you’re trying to achieve?
- Write down the pre-requisites for this occurring
- Write down the pre-requisites for these occurring
- Continue until your organisation / project appears.
Example. At Renew, our Climate Resilient Homes campaign sought change the building code so that it required all new homes to be build to a higher efficiency standard. When working back from the goal of ‘Ministers make correct choice to change regulations’, this methodology shaped a clear advocacy structure. Which was then boiled down into ‘elevate rigorous analysis and community views to counter strength of building lobby’. My somewhat rough laying out here (the experts on my team had a far more detailed version of this thinking):
Note that the model suggests discrete tasks and activities that are additive. Note also that the need for cooperation and collaboration is inherent in the model — because without all of the bricks of the pyramid, you don’t get to the top.
Worked example for a Museum/Gallery
I’ve done this in an hour, with no collaborators, so it isn’t great. But it illustrates the point. Imagine an art gallery, seeking to working out its activities and story. Taking an outcome of wellbeing, it might flow like this:
I can then build a clear logic in a document, describing the role my museum plays in citizens’ ecosystem — and how their absence would be felt.
Why do i think this is better than the current advocacy model?
First, the inherent humility creates plausibility. A moment’s thought from outside the sector suggests it’s laughable for museums describe themselves as a unique panacea; but most museum funding applications do exactly this.
Secondly, for evaluation, We don’t need to prove attainment of the ultimate goal to justify our work. In my example above, if the logic is supported by stakeholders then the existence of a lower box is an evidence base for the ultimate goal. We can find evaluative measures (“90% think staff are welcoming and helpful” that evidence the museum’s role without seeking a 10-year longitudinal study on societal wellbeing.
Thirdly, it removes isolationist rhetoric. Museums are allies of libraries. We know this to be true, but in a wishy-washy way. Theory of Change provides a framework for demonstrating how and why.
And finally, it supports partners. This might be further down the pyramid: a university with an MA course in museology can clearly feed into ‘helpful staff’. And it might be an adjacency: an anti-homeless group clearly fits in the above model alongside museums, and should be a natural ally.
The model has side benefits:
- it enables staff to see exactly how they fit. The day-to-day work of a museum staffer can seem remote from societal impact. Teams that can see themselves in delivery of ultimate purpose are happier and more motivated
- it makes it easy for others to approach and frame themselves as partners. Their theory of change will slot into the same pyramid, and developing projects, partnerships and shared funding application becomes much easier
- it’s the language political staffers and grant-givers are used to. It’s far easier to gain political support if your language lands naturally with your audience
On the ground in Melbourne
There are early glimmers of these approaches in Melbourne. The State’s Creative State strategy contains a logical framework for this sort of advocacy, clearly articulating:
Importantly, the strategy positions our creative industries as a catalyst for the state’s future economic prosperity and social wellbeing
Local museums respond to this differently.
ACMI’s 2020–24 Strategy comes closest to a Theory of Change, with a clear statement of support for the State’s strategy, and a presentational logic that expresses activities leading to impacts. Filtered through a Theory of Change method, I’d argue, would make this clearer and more compelling.
Museums Victoria 2017–2025 Strategic Plan doesn’t address their goals in this way, with only a passing reference to Creative State. I suspect this has a lot to do with the age-old issue of a museum of science and history not quite being aligned with the arts, despite sitting in the arts minister’s portfolio.
Theory of Change further resources
- Centre for Theory of Change
- Guide from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, UK
- From Better Evaluation
What next?
I’d love to know if this resonates with any museum leaders; i would be really keen to see it done for real.
