Evaluating unintended program outcomes through Ripple Effects Mapping (REM): Application of REM using grounded theory

• Published in: Evaluation and program planning Vol. 76; p. 101677
• Main Authors: Peterson, Christina, Skolits, Gary
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.10.2019; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Subjects: Appreciative inquiry; Community development; Goal-free evaluation; Grounded theory; Health education; Health initiatives; Health promotion; Mapping; Program evaluation; Qualitative methods; Ripple Effects Mapping; Sequences; Theory of change; Unintended outcomes; Qualitative methods; Unintended outcomes; Theory of change; Ripple Effects Mapping; Grounded theory; Goal-free evaluation
• ISSN: 0149-7189; 1873-7870
• DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101677

•Social interventions generate changes that ripple through living systems, producing new possibilities, patterns, and unintended outcomes.•Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) is a promising qualitative evaluation method with a wide range of program planning and evaluation applications.•REM applies an Appreciative Inquiry facilitation technique to engage stakeholders in visually mapping sequences of program outcomes.•REM can be useful for depicting a program theory of change that is grounded in participants’ actual experiences. Several evaluation models exist for investigating unintended outcomes, including goal-free and systems evaluation. Yet methods for collecting and analyzing data on unintended outcomes remain under-utilized. Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) is a promising qualitative evaluation method with a wide range of program planning and evaluation applications. In situations where program results are likely to occur over time within complex settings, this method is useful for uncovering both intended and unintended outcomes. REM applies an Appreciative Inquiry facilitation technique to engage stakeholders in visually mapping sequences of program outcomes. Although it has been used to evaluate community development and health promotion initiatives, further methodological guidance for applying REM is still needed. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the methodological development of evaluating unintended outcomes and extend the foundations of REM by describing steps for integrating it with grounded theory.