Program Logic Foundations: Putting the Logic Back into Program Logic

Background: Program logic is one of the most used tools by the public policy evaluator. There is, however, little explanation in the evaluation literature about the logical foundations of program logic or discussion of how it may be determined if a program is logical. This paper was born on a long...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Andrew J. Hawkins
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University 2020-12-01
Series:Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/657
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849769742757265408
author Andrew J. Hawkins
author_facet Andrew J. Hawkins
author_sort Andrew J. Hawkins
collection DOAJ
description Background: Program logic is one of the most used tools by the public policy evaluator. There is, however, little explanation in the evaluation literature about the logical foundations of program logic or discussion of how it may be determined if a program is logical. This paper was born on a long journey that started with program logic and ended with the logic of evaluation. Consistent throughout was the idea that the discipline of program evaluation is a pragmatic one, concerned with applied social science and effective action in complex, adaptive systems. It gradually became the central claim of this paper that evidence-based policy requires sound reasoning more urgently than further development and testing of scientific theory. This was difficult to reconcile with the observation that much evaluation was conducted within a scientific paradigm, concerned with the development and testing of various types of theory. Purpose: This paper demonstrates the benefits of considering the core essence of a program to be a proposition about the value of a course of action. This contrasts with a research-based paradigm in which programs are considered to be a type of theory, and in which experimental and theory-driven evaluations are conducted. Experimental approaches focus on internal validity of knowledge claims about programs and on discovering stable cause and effect relationships—or, colloquially, ‘what works?’. Theory-driven approaches tend to focus on external validity and in the case of the realist approach, the search for transfactual causal mechanisms—extending the ‘what works’ mantra to include ‘for whom and in what circumstances’. On both approaches, evaluation aspires to be a scientific pursuit for obtaining knowledge of general laws of phenomena, or in the case of realists, replicable context-mechanism-outcome configurations. This paper presents and seeks to justify an approach rooted in logic, and that supports anyone to engage in a reasonable and democratic deliberation about the value of a course of action. It is consistent with systems thinking, complexity and the associated limits to certainty for determining the value of a proposed, or actual, course of action in the social world. It suggests that evaluation should learn from the past and have an eye toward the future, but that it would be most beneficial if concerned with evaluating in the present, in addressing the question ‘is this a good idea here and now? Setting: Not applicable. Intervention: Not applicable Research design: Not applicable. Findings: In seeking foundations of program logic, this paper exposes roots that extend far deeper than the post-enlightenment, positivist and post-positivist social science search for stable cause and effect relationships. These roots lie in the 4th century BCE with Aristotle’s ‘enthymeme’. The exploration leads to conclusions about the need for a greater focus on logic and reasoning in the design and evaluation of programs and interventions for the public good. Science and research are shown to play a crucial role in providing reasons or warrants to support a claim about the value of a course of action; however, one subordinate to the alpha-discipline of logical evaluation and decision making that must consider what is feasible given the context, capability and capacity available, not to mention values and ethics. Program Design Logic (PDL) is presented as an accessible and incremental innovation that may be used to determine if a program makes sense ‘on paper’ in the design stage as well as ‘in reality’ during delivery. It is based on a configurationalist theory of causality and the concepts of ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ conditions. It is intended to guide deliberation and decision making across the life cycle of any intervention intended for the public good.
format Article
id doaj-art-8988ce616f2b4c7691946da034fadd72
institution DOAJ
issn 1556-8180
language English
publishDate 2020-12-01
publisher The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University
record_format Article
series Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation
spelling doaj-art-8988ce616f2b4c7691946da034fadd722025-08-20T03:03:20ZengThe Evaluation Center at Western Michigan UniversityJournal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation1556-81802020-12-01163710.56645/jmde.v16i37.657Program Logic Foundations: Putting the Logic Back into Program LogicAndrew J. Hawkins0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4365-1025ARTD Consultants, Charles Darwin University, Australia Background: Program logic is one of the most used tools by the public policy evaluator. There is, however, little explanation in the evaluation literature about the logical foundations of program logic or discussion of how it may be determined if a program is logical. This paper was born on a long journey that started with program logic and ended with the logic of evaluation. Consistent throughout was the idea that the discipline of program evaluation is a pragmatic one, concerned with applied social science and effective action in complex, adaptive systems. It gradually became the central claim of this paper that evidence-based policy requires sound reasoning more urgently than further development and testing of scientific theory. This was difficult to reconcile with the observation that much evaluation was conducted within a scientific paradigm, concerned with the development and testing of various types of theory. Purpose: This paper demonstrates the benefits of considering the core essence of a program to be a proposition about the value of a course of action. This contrasts with a research-based paradigm in which programs are considered to be a type of theory, and in which experimental and theory-driven evaluations are conducted. Experimental approaches focus on internal validity of knowledge claims about programs and on discovering stable cause and effect relationships—or, colloquially, ‘what works?’. Theory-driven approaches tend to focus on external validity and in the case of the realist approach, the search for transfactual causal mechanisms—extending the ‘what works’ mantra to include ‘for whom and in what circumstances’. On both approaches, evaluation aspires to be a scientific pursuit for obtaining knowledge of general laws of phenomena, or in the case of realists, replicable context-mechanism-outcome configurations. This paper presents and seeks to justify an approach rooted in logic, and that supports anyone to engage in a reasonable and democratic deliberation about the value of a course of action. It is consistent with systems thinking, complexity and the associated limits to certainty for determining the value of a proposed, or actual, course of action in the social world. It suggests that evaluation should learn from the past and have an eye toward the future, but that it would be most beneficial if concerned with evaluating in the present, in addressing the question ‘is this a good idea here and now? Setting: Not applicable. Intervention: Not applicable Research design: Not applicable. Findings: In seeking foundations of program logic, this paper exposes roots that extend far deeper than the post-enlightenment, positivist and post-positivist social science search for stable cause and effect relationships. These roots lie in the 4th century BCE with Aristotle’s ‘enthymeme’. The exploration leads to conclusions about the need for a greater focus on logic and reasoning in the design and evaluation of programs and interventions for the public good. Science and research are shown to play a crucial role in providing reasons or warrants to support a claim about the value of a course of action; however, one subordinate to the alpha-discipline of logical evaluation and decision making that must consider what is feasible given the context, capability and capacity available, not to mention values and ethics. Program Design Logic (PDL) is presented as an accessible and incremental innovation that may be used to determine if a program makes sense ‘on paper’ in the design stage as well as ‘in reality’ during delivery. It is based on a configurationalist theory of causality and the concepts of ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ conditions. It is intended to guide deliberation and decision making across the life cycle of any intervention intended for the public good. https://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/657program logicprogram theorytheory of changeprogram design logiclogic of evaluationtheory of causality
spellingShingle Andrew J. Hawkins
Program Logic Foundations: Putting the Logic Back into Program Logic
Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation
program logic
program theory
theory of change
program design logic
logic of evaluation
theory of causality
title Program Logic Foundations: Putting the Logic Back into Program Logic
title_full Program Logic Foundations: Putting the Logic Back into Program Logic
title_fullStr Program Logic Foundations: Putting the Logic Back into Program Logic
title_full_unstemmed Program Logic Foundations: Putting the Logic Back into Program Logic
title_short Program Logic Foundations: Putting the Logic Back into Program Logic
title_sort program logic foundations putting the logic back into program logic
topic program logic
program theory
theory of change
program design logic
logic of evaluation
theory of causality
url https://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/657
work_keys_str_mv AT andrewjhawkins programlogicfoundationsputtingthelogicbackintoprogramlogic