Abstract summary 

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.

Authors & Co-authors:  Bemme Dörte D

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source