Two proponents of theory-based approaches to evaluation that have found favour in the UK in recent years are Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation. In this article we share our evolving views on the points of connection and digression between the approaches based on our reading of the theory-based evaluation literature and our practice experience. We provide a background to the two approaches that emphasizes the importance of programme context in understanding how complex programmes lead to changes in outcomes. We then explore some of the differences in how `theory&#8217; is conceptualized and used within the two approaches and consider how knowledge is generated and cumulated in subtly different ways depending on the approach that is taken. Finally, we offer our thoughts on what this means for evaluators on the ground seeking an appropriate framework for their practice

In this article the authors look at the points of connection and digression between Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation. They discuss the importance of a contextualized perspective in evaluation.

Theories of Change and realistic evaluation: Peas in a pod or apples and oranges?

Theory-based evaluation offers many advantages.  It helps to specify not only the what of program outcomes but also the how and the why.
This article addresses the question how to put this approach into practice. What theory do they use? Do they settle on one theory, or do they consider several theories? In how much detail do they spin out the theories? If they have an elaborated theory (or theories), which links in the theory do they study? What criteria do they use in deciding which links are worth studying?

This article addresses the question how to put a theory-based evaluation approach into practice.