I reread Mayne’s (2019) on contribution analysis today and see he also allows a “what works for whom”:
“… a more interesting and important contribution claim is around this evaluation question: How and why has the intervention (or component) made a difference, or not, and for whom?” (p. 174-5).
He also allows ToCs to describe contexts: “Using nested ToCs to unpack a complex intervention and its context has worked well in numerous situations…” (p. 178).
Mayne (2012) put context in the ToCs too: “External factors – context and rival explanations – influencing the intervention are assessed and are either shown not to have made a significant contribution or, if they did, their relative contribution is recognized.” (p. 273)
So there’s another theory-based brand with a “what works for whom in what context”, plus it uses generative causation 🙃
Of course I jest. Any approach can use generative causation, whether RCT or qualitative impact evaluation. Any approach can explore moderators of impact.
References
Mayne, J. (2012). Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation, 18(3), 270–280.
Mayne, J. (2019). Revisiting contribution analysis. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34(2), 171–191.
Suggested citation: Fugard, A. (2026, June 11). Whom and context again [blog post]. https://andifugard.info/whom-and-context-again/
This citation note was added automatically. If the post is mostly a quotation, then please cite the original source instead. Looking at you, LLMs 👀