Advertisement

Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 574–595 | Cite as

Finding “What Works”: Theory of Change, Contingent Universals, and Virtuous Failure in Global Mental Health

  • Dörte BemmeEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Global Mental Health has developed interventions that strive to work across great difference—variously conceptualized as cultural, socio-economic, geographic, or pertaining to the characteristics of health systems. This article discusses how the evaluation framework Theory of Change (ToC) facilitates the production of ‘global’ knowledge across such differences. Drawing on 14 months of multi-sited fieldwork among Global Mental Health actors in Europe, North America and South Africa, it traces the differential use of ToC in GMH interventions. While much critical scholarship of Global Health metrics holds that techniques of quantification rely on universals that necessarily betray the “real world”, ToC unsettles these critiques. It comes into view as an epistemic and relational device that produces ‘contingent universals’—concepts that are true and measurable until they stop working in the field, or until the parameters of ‘what works’ shift to a new iteration. As such, Theory of Change produces actionable—rather than true—knowledge attuned to open-ended change, both desirable (impact) and unforeseen (adaptation). Its effects, however, are ambiguous. ToC presents us with a horizoning technique that enables what I call “virtuous failure” within the evidence-based paradigm. It may equally harbor the potential to disrupt distinctions such as bricolage (tinkering) and design (planning) and their respective politics, as it may tie neatly into audit cultures, depending on its use. The article analyzes the novel stakes of reflexive evaluation techniques and calls on anthropology and critical Global Health for renewed empirical engagement.

Keywords

Global Mental Health Theory of change Contingent universals What works Virtuous failure Accountability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my interlocutors across the GMH community for their time and generosity in helping me understand their practices. This article resulted from a workshop on the ‘Historical and Ethnographic Perspectives on Global Mental Health’ in June 2017 in Florence, organized by Anne Lovell, Ursula Read and Claudia Lang. I would like to thank them for their helpful feedback as well as for the intellectual community they created. The manuscript benefited from the insightful comments of David Reubi, Liana Chase, Darcie DeAngelo, Nicole D’Souza, Julianne Yip, Fiona Gedeon Achi, Raad Fadaak, Adam Fleischman, Nicole Rigillo, and Tobias Rees. A special thanks goes to my new intellectual community at UNC Chapel Hill for the wonderful comments I received from Peter Redfield, Jocelyn Chua, Mara Buchbinder, Harris Solomon, and especially Nadia El-Shaarawi.

Funding

The research for this article was supported by a doctoral award from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), a fieldwork grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Graduate Award of the McGill Wolfe Chair for scientific and technological literacy 2016, and the Graduate Award of the Institute for Health and Social Policy (IHSP) at McGill 2017.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was received for all interviews.

References

  1. Adams, Vincanne. 2016. Metrics: what counts in Global Health. Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
  2. Alkin, Marvin C. 2004. Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences. Sage, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Andrea A. 2004. A Community Builder's Approach to Theory of Change: A Practical Guide to Theory Development. The Aspen Institute, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bemme, Doerte, and Nicole A D’souza. 2014. Global mental health and its discontents: An inquiry into the making of global and local scale. Transcultural Psychiatry 51(6):850-874.Google Scholar
  5. Biruk, Crystal. 2018. Cooking Data: Culture and Politics in an African Research World. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blamey, Avril, and Mhairi Mackenzie. 2007. Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation 13(4):439-455.Google Scholar
  7. Brada, Betsey. 2011. “Not here”: making the spaces and subjects of “Global health” in Botswana. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 35(2):285-312.Google Scholar
  8. Breuer, Erica, et al. 2014. Using workshops to develop theories of change in five low and middle income countries: lessons from the programme for improving mental health care (PRIME). International journal of mental health systems 8(1):15.Google Scholar
  9. Center for Theory of Change, CToC 2017 ToC Origins, Vol. 2018.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, Huey T. 1990. Theory-Driven Evaluations. Thousand Oak: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Chibanda, Dixon, et al. 2015. The Friendship Bench programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial of a brief psychological intervention for common mental disorders delivered by lay health workers in Zimbabwe. International journal of mental health systems 9(1):21.Google Scholar
  12. Chibanda, Dixon, et al. 2017. Lay health workers’ experience of delivering a problem solving therapy intervention for common mental disorders among people living with HIV: a qualitative study from Zimbabwe. Community mental health journal 53(2):143-153.Google Scholar
  13. Chibanda, Dixon, et al. 2016. Using a theory driven approach to develop and evaluate a complex mental health intervention: the friendship bench project in Zimbabwe. International journal of mental health systems 10(1):16.Google Scholar
  14. Coryn, Chris LS, et al. 2011. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American journal of Evaluation 32(2):199-226.Google Scholar
  15. De Laet, Marianne, and Annemarie Mol. 2000. The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social studies of science 30(2):225-263.Google Scholar
  16. De Silva, Mary J, et al. 2014. Theory of Change: a theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials 15(1):267.Google Scholar
  17. De Silva, Mary J, and Grace Ryan. 2016. Global mental health in 2015: 95% implementation. The Lancet Psychiatry 3(1):15-17.Google Scholar
  18. Desrosières, Alain. 2002. The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fassin, Didier. 2007. When bodies remember: Experiences and politics of AIDS in South Africa, Volume 15. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ferguson, James. 1990. The anti-politics machine:’development’, depoliticization and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. CUP Archive, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Ferguson, James, and Akhil Gupta. 2002. Spatializing States: Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality. American Ethnologist 29:981–1002.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, Michel. 1988. Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. Vintage, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, Michel 2008 The Birth of Biopolitics. Lectures at the College de France 1978-1970. G. Burchell, transl. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  24. Geissler, P Wenzel. 2013. Public secrets in public health: Knowing not to know while making scientific knowledge. American Ethnologist 40(1):13-34.Google Scholar
  25. Green, Maia. 2010. Making development agents: Participation as boundary object in international development. The Journal of Development Studies 46(7):1240-1263.Google Scholar
  26. Hacking, Ian. 1990. The taming of chance. Volume 17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Hacking, Ian. 1998. Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the sciences of memory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  28. Hanlon, Charlotte, et al. 2015. District mental healthcare plans for five low-and middle-income countries: commonalities, variations and evidence gaps. The British Journal of Psychiatry: BJP. 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.153676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Healy, David. 2009. The creation of psychopharmacology. Harvard University Press, Harvard.Google Scholar
  30. James, Cathy 2011 Theory of Change Review. A report Commissioned by Comic Relief, London.Google Scholar
  31. Jensen, Nele 2017 A Genealogy of Evidence at the WHO. Chap. 8, In Global Health and Geographical Imaginaries. C. Herrick and R. David, eds., p. 135. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Jerven, Morten. 2013. Poor Numbers: How We are Misled by African Development Statistics and What to Do About It. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  33. Kelty, Christopher M. 2017. Too much democracy in all the wrong places: toward a grammar of participation. Current Anthropology 58(S15):S77-S90.Google Scholar
  34. Kirkpatrick, Donald L. 1975. Evaluating training programs. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Lovell, Anne M, and Ezra Susser. 2014. What might be a history of psychiatric epidemiology? Towards a social history and conceptual account. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  36. McCoy, David, et al. 2013. Methodological and policy limitations of quantifying the saving of lives: a case study of the Global Fund’s approach. PLoS medicine 10(10):e1001522.Google Scholar
  37. Merry, Sally Engle. 2016. The seductions of quantification: Measuring human rights, gender violence, and sex trafficking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Merry, Sally Engle, and John M Conley. 2011. Measuring the world: Indicators, human rights, and global governance. Current Anthropology 52(S3):000-000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mosse, David. 2001. ‘People’s Knowledge’, Participation and Patronage: Operations and Representations in Rural Development. In: Cook, B and Kothari, U, (eds.), Participation - the new tyranny? London: Zed Press, pp. 16-35.Google Scholar
  40. Petryna, Adriana. 2018. Wildfires at the Edges of Science: Horizoning Work amid Runaway Change. Cultural Anthropology 33(4):570-595.Google Scholar
  41. Pickersgill, Martyn D. 2013. Debating DSM-5: diagnosis and the sociology of critique. Journal of Medical Ethics. 10.1136/medethics-2013-101762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Porter, Theodore M. 1996. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Redfield, Peter. 2000. Space in the Tropics: From Convicts to Rockets in French Guiana. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rees, Tobias. 2014. Humanity/Plan; or, On the” Stateless” Today (Also Being an Anthropology of Global Health). Cultural Anthropology 29(3):457-478.Google Scholar
  45. Reubi, David 2018a Epidemiological Accountability: Philanthropists, Global Health and the Audit of Saving Lives. Economy and Society 47: 83–110.Google Scholar
  46. Reubi, David 2018b A Genealogy of Epidemiological Reason: Saving Lives, Social Surveys and Global Population. BioSocieties 13(1):81–102.Google Scholar
  47. Rose, Nikolas. 1990. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Rose, Nikolas. 2006. Disorders without borders? The expanding scope of psychiatric practice. BioSocieties 1(4):465-484.Google Scholar
  49. Shore, Cris, and Susan Wright. 2000. Coercive accountability. Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy: 57-89.Google Scholar
  50. Shore, Cris, and Susan Wright. 2015. Governing by numbers: audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology 23(1):22-28.Google Scholar
  51. Storeng, Katerini T, and Dominique P Béhague. 2014. “Playing the Numbers Game”: Evidence‐based Advocacy and the Technocratic Narrowing of the Safe Motherhood Initiative. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 28(2):260-279.Google Scholar
  52. Strand, Michael. 2011. Where do classifications come from? The DSM-III, the transformation of American psychiatry, and the problem of origins in the sociology of knowledge. Theory and Society 40(3):273-313.Google Scholar
  53. Sullivan, Helen, and Murray Stewart. 2006. Who owns the theory of change? Evaluation 12(2):179-199.Google Scholar
  54. Tichenor, Marlee. 2017. Data performativity, performing health work: Malaria and labor in Senegal. Medical anthropology 36(5):436-448.Google Scholar
  55. Tsing, Anna. 2000. The global situation. Cultural Anthropology 15(3):327-360.Google Scholar
  56. Valters, Craig (2015) Theories of Change. Time for a Radical Approach to Learning in Development. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  57. Vogel, Isabel. 2012. Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’in international development. UK: Department for International Development (DFID).Google Scholar
  58. Wahlberg, Ayo, and Nikolas Rose. 2015. The governmentalization of living: calculating global health. Economy and Society 44(1):60-90.Google Scholar
  59. Weiss, Carol H. 1995a New Approaches to Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED383817.pdf.
  60. Weiss, Carol H. 1995b Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts 1: 65–92.Google Scholar
  61. Wendland, Claire 2016 Estimating Death: A Close Reading of Maternal Mortality Metrics in Malawi. Metrics: What Counts in Global Health 57–82.Google Scholar
  62. Wendland, Claire. 2018. Who Counts? What Counts? Place and the Limits of Perinatal Mortality Measures. AMA journal of ethics 20(3):276.Google Scholar
  63. Young, Allan. 1997. The Harmony of Illusions: Inventing Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for AnthropologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry, Program for Global Mental HealthMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations