Transformational Assumptions

  • Apollo M. Nkwake


While prescriptive assumptions are related to strategies (and alternatives) devised to address a problem, transformational assumptions relate to how the immediate results of a strategy, program, or intervention (outputs) are expected to lead to long-term desired changes. This chapter appraises the use of elicitation, a program theory matrix, and the theory of change approach to explicate transformational assumptions and proposes an integrative approach.


Transformational assumptions Types of transformational assumptions Frame of utilization Explicating transformational assumptions Elicitation methodology Program theory matrix Integrative approach W.K. Kellogg Foundation approach Contribution analysis 


  1. Anderson, A. (2004). Theory of change as a tool for strategic planning: A report on early experiences. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Ashley, C., & Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience. London, UK: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  3. Chen, H. T. (2006). A theory-driven evaluation perspective on mixed methods research. Research in the Schools (Mid-South Educational Research Association), 13(1), 75–83.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. London, UK: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fishbein, M., Hennessy, M., Kamb, M., Bolan, G. A., Hoxworth, T., Iatesta, M., … Zenilman, J. M. (2001). Using intervention theory to model factors influencing behavior change. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 24(4), 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Funnel, S. C. (2000). Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitoring. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hans, G. P., Pender, J. J., Damon, A., & Schipper, R. (2006). Rural development policies and sustainable land use in the hillside areas of Honduras: A quantitative livelihoods approach. Research Report 147. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, R. B. (1998). Toward a theoretical model of evaluation utilization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 21(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Kincaid, D. L., Figueroa, M. E., Storey, D., & Underwood, C. (2001). Communication and behavior change: The role of ideation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs.Google Scholar
  11. Leeuw, F. L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lulua, R., Aanyu, D., Sherburne, L., & Nkwake, A. (2007). A whole-school approach to school-based quality reform: The Uganda experience. Paper presented at the 51st Annual International Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, February 25–March 1, 2007, Baltimore, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change models. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30.2(Fall/autumn), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: Addressing cause effect. In K. Forss, M. Marra, & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Evaluating the complex: Attribution, contribution, and beyond (pp. 53–96). New Brunswick, NJ: Transactional Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, C. (2011). Households targeted for agricultural production interventions were those that received nutrition education. Evaluation of Lugbu Area Development Program.Freetown, Sierra Leone: World Vision Sierra Leone. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  16. Nicol, A. (2000). Adopting a sustainable livelihoods approach to water projects: Implications for policy and practice. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Parkinson, S., & Ramírez, R. (2001). Using a sustainable livelihoods approach to assessing the impact of ICTs in development. Community Informatics, 2(3). Retrieved from
  18. Patton, M. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation: The new century text. New York, NY: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and connectedness: Issues and implications for agriculture, rural development and natural resource management in ACP countries. CTA Working Document Number 8032 Wageningen, The Netherlands: African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and European Union (ACP-EU) Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Co-operation (CTA).Google Scholar
  20. Toufique, K. (2001). Rights and livelihoods. Workshop. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies and Power and Participation Research Centre.Google Scholar
  21. Tucci, T. N. (2009). Whole-school reform: Transforming the nation’s low-performing high schools, Policy Brief, July 2009.Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from
  22. Van der Heijden, K., & Eden, C. (1998). The theory and praxis of reflective learning in strategy making. In C. Eden & J. C. Spender (Eds.), Managerial and organizational cognition: Theory, methods and research (pp. 58–76). London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Vernez, G., Karam, R., Mariano, L. T., & DeMartini, C. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  24. Vesey, G. N. A. (1954). Unthinking assumptions and their justification. Mind, New Series, 63(250), 226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiss, C. H. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation, 87(Fall), 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Apollo M. Nkwake
    • 1
  1. 1.Questions LLCMarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations