|||

Causal diagrams and Theory Maker: left-to-right? bottom-up? top-down?

There is an interesting discussion going on at LinkedIn about Theory Maker. One commenter asked why Theorymaker presents things left-to-right. This is what I wrote.

Well there are two things here:

The first is the direction of the arrows themselves. It sounds like you are saying that the arrows should go from, say, outcome to output because one thinks first about the outcome? Sure, … from a point of view of interpretation you can draw the arrows the other way round if you want. But I think the consensus is that the direction of the arrow means causation, so they should go from output to outcome. But if you want to think the other way round, you can draw the arrows the other way round in Theorymaker too.

Second, you could be talking about the presentation, and here it makes a difference where you come from … if you come from a left-to-right writing culture, left-to-right makes a lot of sense because it corresponds with the flow of time: outcomes come later than outputs. Personally I am not fond of bottom-to-top because I am not very happy with the interpretation that higher” means better”. In Theorymaker, you can mark any variable as valuable just by adding _val to its name. Thus we separate value from position. But still, different people like different things so I added a button and now you can display the diagram anyway you want.

The same commenter also asked whether the parts of a causal diagram have necessarily to be INPUTS , ACTIVITIES and OUTCOME

This is what I wrote:

… well there is an example diagram which loads up when you load the app, and I pasted in a similar one at the start of this discussion, but Theorymaker is not tied to these designations at all. Personally I only distinguish inputs (completely under your control) and valued variables, those variables which are important to us. In between, there could be any causal network at all, with any number of variables, layers, branches and loops. I totally agree that assumptions are important too, but most often an assumption is another variable which should be included in the causal diagram, not relegated to another column or an annex. I wrote a bit more about assumptions here. So I do think that causal networks such as those you can draw with Theorymaker are enough for project modelling - at least from a theoretical point of view. In practice, of course, there might be lots of additional features from cost to precise timing which you can’t reproduce in Theorymaker.

Up next The theory behind theories of change This essay will look at the theory behind theories of change. First of all it is a quick introduction to my forthcoming book provisionally entitled How to make Theory of Change diagrams with Theorymaker Each line in the text box is one variable in the graph. A variable is any factor in your theory of change - something which could be different.
Latest posts Causal Mapping - an earlier guide The walk to school in Sarajevo Glitches Draft blog post for AEA365 Theory Maker! Inventory & analysis of small conservation grants, C&W Africa - Powell & Mesbach! Lots of charts! Answering the “why” question: piecing together multiple pieces of causal information rbind.fill for 1-dimensional tables in r yED graph editor Examples of trivial graph format Using attr labels for ggplot An evaluation puzzle: “Talent show” An evaluation puzzle: “Mobile first” An evaluation puzzle: “Many hands” An evaluation puzzle: Loaves and fishes An evaluation puzzle: “Freak weather” An evaluation puzzle: “Billionaire” Publications Using Dropbox for syncing Shiny app data on Amazon EC2 Progress on the Causal Map app Articles and presentations related to Causal Maps and Theorymaker Better ways to present country-level data on a world map: equal-area cartograms A starter kit for reproducible research with R A reproducible workflow for evaluation reports Welcome to the Wiggle Room Realtime comments on a Theory of Change Responses to open questions shown as tooltips in a chart A panel on visualising Theories of Change for EES 2018? Peer mentoring for evaluators How do you explain reproducible research to clients? Links for my AEA eval2017 presentation, Washington DC