# Grouping boxes

We already saw that we can use Features as a way of highlighting parts of Variable labels which are common between different Variables, e.g.

Student-teacher interaction is more solution-oriented

Teachers attend training, Stakeholder=Teachers

Teachers attend workshops, Stakeholder=Teachers

Students attend workshops, Stakeholder=Students

Students take part in discussion on social media, Stakeholder=Students

A more elegant solution is often to use “grouping boxes” like this:

Student-teacher interaction is more solution-oriented

-Activities, stakeholder=teachers

Teachers attend training

Teachers attend workshops

-Activities, stakeholder=students

Students attend workshops

Students take part in discussion on social media 

We can also use grouping boxes simply to highlight or separate parts of a Theory. Used like this, they mean virtually nothing. They just make the Theory easier to understand and, crucially, help us resist the temptation to use causal arrows for this purpose

Some outcome

-First part

Some activity

Some input activity

-Second part

A further activity

One more input

Theorymaker native speakers claim they can say just about anything which needs to be said in the world of monitoring and evaluation just using these basic ingredients: Variables joined together by Rules. We will now look at an example of Theorymaker native speakers doing just that: highlighting the overall structure of a Theory by using a new organisational element (“grouping boxes”) which can however be defined in terms of Variables and Rules.

## Variables grouped by stakeholder

In Theories of Change it is usually a good idea to show what or who can vary, and to mark this clearly with text or graphics. So rather than just “Level of approval of policies” we prefer to know exactly who is doing the approving - the general population? Politicians?

Student-teacher interaction is more solution-oriented

Teachers attend training

Teachers attend workshops

Students attend workshops

Students take part in discussion on social media

We have already seen that we can use Features in Theorymaker to highlight things like type and activity:

Student-teacher interaction is more solution-oriented

Teachers attend training, Type=Activity, Stakeholder=Teachers

Teachers attend workshops, Type=Activity, Stakeholder=Teachers

Students attend workshops, Type=Activity, Stakeholder=Students

Students take part in discussion on social media , Type=Activity, Stakeholder=Students

This is especially important when more than one Variable belongs to the same agent or stakeholder (and/or time-point), in which case it is useful to highlight this graphically e.g. by using common colours. So we might use one colour for Variables belonging to “Teachers” and another for Variables belonging to “Students”. And we often want to group together those Variables we consider to be activities, or outcomes, etc.

Ordinary logframe formats don’t make it easy to group together Variables which belong together. In Theorymaker, this can be done by coding with colours and shapes. For example we could make activities oval, teachers orange and students green, like this:

Student-teacher interaction is more solution-oriented

Teachers attend training; shape=oval; colour=orange3

Teachers attend workshops; shape=oval; colour=orange3

Students attend workshops; shape=oval; colour=green3

Students take part in discussion on social media ; shape=oval; colour=green3

… the disadvantage with this approach is that we need a key to explain that green means “students”, ovals are for activities, etc.

Grouping boxes used like this don’t add information. The diagram above says no more than the one before it. They just help to organise the Theory optically. The reason they are so important is that, without them, people using traditional frameworks like logframes often end up abusing supposedly causal connections just in order to introduce some structure into the plan; see xx. So we sometimes see monstrosities like this:

Student-teacher interaction is more solution-oriented

Activities

Activities for teachers

Teachers attend training

Teachers attend workshops

Activities for students

Students attend workshops

Students take part in discussion on social media

title=This is a really poor Theory of Change   

## Variables grouped by narrative

Often we see elements in Logframes which include a description of an intervention and its consequences, e.g. of the form “Getting X by doing Y”. Sometimes they are intended as some kind of title for the elements upstream, for example as the name or description of a project phase or focus.

Improving student outcomes through training and improved motivation

Improved student outcomes through training teachers

Improving teaching by training teachers

Improved teaching

Training teachers

Improving student motivation through after-school activities

Motivated students

After-school activities

title=Another terrible Theory of Change

wrap=7 

Now we certainly don’t want to deal with Variables of that kind of form (“Improving student outcomes through training and improved motivation”). We should always prefer logically simple Variables. See xx. But often these phrases aren’t really meant as Variables but are inserted into a logframe just as narrative titles of some part of the Logframe - or even of all of it. Grouping boxes provide a much better way to include these kinds of descriptions.

-Improving student outcomes through training and improved motivation

Improved student outcomes

--Improving teaching by training teachers

Improved teaching

Training teachers

--Improving student motivation through after-school activities

Motivated students

After-school activities

## Variables grouped by “Pillars”

Another common way of organising projects into parts is “pillars”. There is no formal definition of this idea - pillars can group project Variables according to narrative and/or organisational unit, and so on.

## Scenarios

see xx. Note the use of Scenario Analysis in economics.

(King 2016)

## Limitations of grouping boxes

It isn’t always possible to use boxes everywhere we want, for example it is usually difficult to use them both for separate time-points, e.g. baseline and endline, if we also want to use them for actors, e.g. students and teachers; or in this case, where the grouping boxes overlap because Variables can belong to more than one category of the same type.

IIED

So we have to resort to a different method to group the other attribute, and vice-versa:

-Endline

Student achievement (endline), type=student

-Baseline

Student achievement (baseline), type=student

Student ability, type=student

Teacher skills, type=teacher 

or, alternatively:

-Student

Student achievement (endline), time=endline

Student achievement (baseline), time=baseline

Student ability, time=baseline

-Teacher

Teacher skills, time=baseline 

### References

King, Julian. 2016. “Using Economic Methods Evaluatively.” American Journal of Evaluation, 1–13. doi:10.1177/1098214016641211.