sincerely-media-dGxOgeXAXm8-unsplash

We worked with HEPs over a four-month period to develop a set of resources for interventions aiming to reduce their ethnicity degree awarding gaps. These comprised Core ToCs (CToCs), Enhanced ToCs (EToCs) and evaluation plans.

These resources are principally useful in their own right. However, we also observed the positive impact that the process had on stakeholders working with us, and their understanding of their activities, their students, and their own institutional contexts. 

Apart from raising awareness across the HEPs we worked with, our team also noted how much we were learning about the process. 

So, what are some top tips we could share with the sector?

Coming to ‘terms’ with Theory of Change content

The path to this point started over a year ago when TASO commissioned Staffordshire University to develop a typology of current approaches to address ethnicity degree awarding gaps based on an analysis of 249 access and participation plans . 

The typology sped up the process in terms of getting to know the individual interventions quickly – an essential point given the short timeframe we had to work with the six HEPs. In particular, it helped us identify and showcase the variety of approaches taken by different HEPs to address ethnicity degree awarding gaps. This can be seen in the figure below. 

Approaches taken by different HEPs to address ethnicity degree awarding gaps

Diagram showing various interventions used by different universities aiming to address the ethnicity degree awarding gap. University of Law: Monitoring of Inclusive Learning Panel. University of Southampton: Dissertation retreats and the awarding gap project. University of York: Departmental EDAG framework. Birmingham City University: Accessible Assessment Principles. Loughborough University: Student Referral Scheme. Manchester Met University: Strive 100 Staff accountability partnerships.

The TASO ToC and evaluation planning templates served a similar function – as guiding frameworks for our workshops with HEPs. Using their terminology, we could ensure that everyone involved was on the same page, which facilitated productive collaboration and progress.

Key learning: Use the TASO templates to guide your thinking and collaborative working; you don’t need to go through these linearly or exhaustively – or even all at once. But rather, use them to fit your own needs. 

Who needs to be there and why

A key consideration is centralising the voices of racially minoritised groups – ensuring diverse representation across the project team is integral in developing an intervention that truly values the lived experiences of its intended beneficiaries. 

When working with the project teams of varying sizes and configurations, we noted that a diverse group fostered inclusive decision-making processes and cultivated a shared vision for addressing ethnicity degree awarding gaps.

Suggested project team members: 

  • Someone who is external to the HEP/project team to help challenge their assumptions and question their own thinking.
  • Operational staff delivering the intervention to ensure that the realities of implementation are considered and that the intervention is practical and feasible within existing resources. 
  • Students to test the logic of the ToC and make the proposed activities relevant. 
  • Senior leaders with strategic oversight to share information about the wider context and resources. This helps align the intervention plan with institutional priorities, facilitating buy-in and support for implementation. 

Key learning: Think about who you need to include at different times, authentically engage with a diverse range of voices, and get buy-in from stakeholders across your institution. 

Getting started using ToC ‘buckets’

Developing a ToC from scratch can be daunting. To address this hurdle, we developed the concept of ‘buckets’ for the different components of the ToC. This proved invaluable in brainstorming the diverse range of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts related to an intervention. 

Using buckets eliminated the need for stakeholders to identify relationships between components straight away. This helped to keep the momentum and conversational flow, and enabled stakeholders to stay focused on recording their thoughts, with the knowledge that they can sort them into the appropriate bucket later.  

The dynamic nature of the documents allowed us the flexibility and creativity needed to craft these individualised plans with each HEP. 

Key learning: Don’t feel like you need to have a clear idea of how the ToC maps together straight away. Using a staged process will enable you to ensure you capture all relevant detail.

Overarching reflections

It was challenging to produce six high-quality CToCs, EToCs and evaluation plans within such a short timeframe, however the HEPs’ motivation and enthusiasm to engage was wonderful to see and work with. 

Key learning: For anyone embarking on this work, make sure you have great colleagues around you – it makes the whole thing easier! 

Authors:

  • Dr Amanda Aldercotte, Head of Knowledge and Research, Advance HE
  • Dr Sally Andrews, Pedagogic Projects Development Manager, Staffordshire Centre of Learning and Pedagogic Practice​, Staffordshire University
  • Kierra Bunting, Education Research and Evaluation Manager, Staffordshire University
  • Dr Panagiota Sotiropoulou, Mixed Methods Researcher​, Advance HE