Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Program logic models are widespread and useful tools for stakeholder engagement, communication, program development and planning, and evaluation purposes. However, a key potential weakness includes the difficulty conveying the complexity associated with many interventions, which is exacerbated by the limited range of visuals used in most program logics. Program logics are almost always represented as text within rectangular boxes arranged in columns or rows, representing inputs, outputs, and outcomes; with arrows representing the linkages between them. The simplicity and consistency of this graphic language is useful but also presents a risk of over-simplifying and misleading non-evaluator users into a direct, causal set of relationships. In addition, rectangles and arrows have cultural and historical meanings that often go un-examined. This article provides a brief review of the symbology of program logics, identifies several issues with current practice, and provides several alternatives for conveying causal relationships and other aspects of program logics. It is hoped that the focus on an expanded visual vocabulary will help evaluators convey the complex reality of programs.

Keywords

impact pathways program logic symbols visual graphic

What We Already Know

• Program logics/impact pathways are prevalent and valuable tools but are limited in their visual vocabulary, relying primarily on rectangles and arrows.

• This limitation can have unintended consequences, such as unintentionally over-stating the likelihood of causal impacts of programs, primarily to non-evaluators.

The Original Contribution the Article Makes to Theory and/or Practice

• This article reviews the history and meanings behind common shapes used in program logics, and how they might influence users.

• The article also outlines several opportunities to expand the breadth of graphics and shapes to more accurately and engagingly convey theories of change and impact.

Introduction

Program logic models are one of the most used tools in program evaluation (Onyura et al., 2021). Their consistency, simplicity, and visual nature make them powerfully useful for stakeholder engagement, communication, program development and planning, and evaluation purposes. However, their weaknesses include: the difficulty conveying the complexity associated with social and education interventions, underplaying external influences, and neglecting to identify undesirable unintended outcomes. Put another way: ‘...notable shortcomings of the logic model are…depicting the program theory linearly and failing to place the program in context. Both issues lead to an artificial depiction of reality making evaluation findings difficult to interpret’ (Renger et al., 2019, p. 17). Onyura et al. (2021) identified five ways to address these shortcomings, but improving the visual aspects of program logic models was not one of them. The benefits of logic models, according to evaluation experts, often specifically highlight their visual nature. A logic model’s ‘intended purpose [is] providing a clear visual representation of the underlying rationale’ (Renger & Titcomb, 2002, p. 493). Related to this is the simplicity of logic models. A survey of pharmacy students found that the majority felt ‘use of… [the logic model] is a simple way to monitor program performance and to communicate progress…’ (Carrion et al., 2021, p. 792). Therefore, logic modelling is the visual and simple representation of the program theory; that is, ‘the basis upon which it is supposed to lead to the desired effect’ (Brousselle & Champagne, 2011, p. 70). How the theory is represented visually therefore matters. This article is structured in three sections: A brief review of the symbology of program logics, including the history and meanings of shapes; identification of the main issues with the current symbols used; and recommendations for a more nuanced visualisation.

Review of the Symbology of Program Logics

This review comprises an analysis of a sample of program logics in a leading Australian evaluation journal to assess what symbols are currently being used in practice; an examination of the related organisational chart and flow chart diagrams and the cross-cultural meanings of symbols; and a synthesis of the literature on the history and meanings of common shapes used in program logics (specifically rectangles and lines/arrows).

Analysis of Common Symbols

Program logics are almost always represented as text within rectangular boxes arranged in columns or rows, representing inputs, outputs, and outcomes; with arrows representing the (causal) linkages between them. To understand the current use of symbols in program logics, a review of all 162 academic and practice articles in the Evaluation Journal of Australasia from 2012 to 2024 was conducted, as this journal represents the leading evaluation journal in Australia. The analysis comprised the author searching each article for any visuals of a program logic or impact pathway and summarising the principal shapes used. The analysis revealed that 21 out of 162 (13%) included a visual representation of one or more causal relationships, such as a program logic, logic model, impact pathway, impact statement, root cause analysis, or theory of change. It is acknowledged that some diagrams may have been intended to portray different theories of causality, such as ‘propositions for action’ (Hawkins & Bayley, 2025). However, the overall issue remains that the visuals of program logics imply Newtonian causality to many users. Representations of governance structures, operational procedures, frameworks, system maps, mind maps, or other similar non-causal relationships were not included. As can be seen in Table 1, among these 21 articles, most causal relationships were represented by rectangles and connecting arrows (or triangles functioning as arrows), with circles and triangles sometimes used. Snow and Snow (2017) describe two types of logic models: boxes and arrows style, and column style. However, symbolically these two types are similar, with rectangles connected by arrows representing a logic of how one element leads to another.

Table 1.

Shapes Used in Sample of Program Logic Diagrams

Shape(s)	Number of instances	Articles and visual tools
	10	Beaton (2016) – theory of change; Coskun et al. (2012) – root cause analysis diagram; Dickinson and Adams (2012) – logic model; Gawaya et al. (2022) – theory of change; Henry et al. (2018) – theory of change/operation; Kingston (2016) – logic model; Lloyd et al. (2022) – program logic; Renger et al. (2019) – logic model; Renger et al. (2017) – root cause analysis; Tanuvasa and Neale (2015) – logic model
	5	Berryman et al. (2013) – outcomes logic model; Downing and Rogan (2016) – program logic; Morton and Cook (2018) – conceptual model; Nolan et al. (2024) – theory of change; Renger et al. (2023) – logic model
	3	Alderman (2015) – logic model; Goodwins et al. (2017) – theory of change; McDonald and Stirling (2019) – program theory
	1	Guenther et al. (2020) – causal pathway model
	1	McMenamin et al. (2023) – theory of change
	1	Whitau et al. (2024) – program logic model

Similarly, guides to developing program logics rarely specifically advise on visuals beyond the basic rectangle and arrows. For example, Milstein and Chapel (2019) offer a thorough stepwise process with lengthy discussions of logic modelling. Interestingly, the authors state that ‘the arrows between the boxes indicate that review and adjustment are an ongoing process - both in enacting the initiative and developing the model’. The authors go on to emphasise that ‘although this example uses boxes and arrows, you…can use any format or imagery that communicates more effectively with your stakeholders’. However, based on the sample of examples in Table 1, few program logic developers do this.

Reasons for Using Rectangles and Arrows

Why are rectangles and arrows used to represent causal relationships? There are probably a few practical elements. First, word processing programs default to text boxes that are rectangular, and this shape can also contain a maximum amount of text. Similarly, aligning and fitting the maximum number of shapes on a single page is most efficiently achieved by using squares or rectangles.¹ Similarly, arrows are also prevalent, easy to understand, and easy to construct digitally, and they have become the overwhelming default option, possibly used uncritically.

Review of Related Diagram Types

Program logic diagrams have a shared legacy in other similar visual representations, particularly the organisational chart and the flow diagram. A typical organisational chart comprises rectangles arranged in rows, usually in a hierarchy, with lines connecting the rectangles. The rectangles and lines represent an organisation’s internal structure, with the rectangles denoting positions/people or business units, and the lines denoting reporting relationships or lines of communication or control. It is worth noting that positions of authority and power in social hierarchies are associated with elevated positions in space, in actual social practice, in metaphoric language, and thought (Giessner & Schubert, 2019). The use of rectangles, arrows, and the top to bottom or left to right orientation is similar to logic models, with the hierarchy of outcomes analogous to the hierarchy of an organisation. There have been attempts to modify the typical organisational chart (e.g. Fanning, 1997), but they are relatively rare.

Program logics and organisational charts employ a similarly small number of visual symbols; however, flowcharts are diagrams that use a large range of universally agreed symbols to represent a workflow or process. Flow or process charts were first documented over a century ago (Gilbreth & Gilbreth, 1921) and the basic visual representations remain similar: geometric shapes mapping steps in a process. There can be up to several dozen different symbols in a flow chart, for example, a decision, event, delay, communication link, start, end, sort, merge, document, compare, etc. represented by triangles, circles, ovals, parallelograms, diamonds, regular lines, dashed lines, parallel lines, arrows, etc. This substantial visual vocabulary, compared to program logics, allows flowcharts to map and communicate complex processes more accurately. However, compared to the complexity of social and education programs and human behaviour, most flow charts represent much simpler and linear phenomena, which makes the lack of visual diversity in program logics even more apparent.

Cross-Cultural Meanings of Shapes

Even though most program logics use only a few basic shapes, these symbols have deep cross-cultural meanings that reinforce the epistemology underlying them, beyond mere convenience and legacy. That is, the shapes have meanings that convey information to users, often unintentionally. Shapes not only have physical qualities but also have tertiary qualities, such as value and emotion, which are not solely attributed to the observer but also exist within the stimulus itself (Bertamini et al., 2016). For example, a smiley-face emoji appears happy and a frowning-face emoji appears sad; therefore, the shapes convey meaning and elicit emotional responses. Importantly, shape recognition and form schemas are so fundamental to humans that the concept of shape for very young children is a field of study (Clements et al., 1999). Therefore, it’s important to consider shapes as symbols.

Review of the Meaning of Rectangles

The shapes encasing text in program logics are most commonly rectangles, which have deeply rooted cultural and cognitive meanings: ‘Of all geometric forms, the [rectangle is the] most rational, the most secure and regular; this is explained empirically by the fact that, at all times and in all places, it has been the shape favoured by man when preparing any space or object for immediate use in life: house, room, table, bed, for example’ (Cirlot, 2013). Rectangles and other primary shapes have been described as ‘good shapes’ by Gestalt theorists; however, recent thinking suggests that the general absence of straight lines and symmetry in nature make rectangles unusual and unnatural (Roberson et al., 2002). In program logic diagrams, rectangular text boxes are commonly aligned neatly in columns, further reinforcing the orderliness of the visual model, often in contrast to the substantial complexity and uncertainty of the underlying relationships that exist (or may not exist) in reality. Rectangles tell the user that there is order and understanding. Rectangles (squares) are also commonly used to symbolise males (with circles used to symbolise females), for example, in genetic nomenclature (Tuite et al., 2020). Experiments have indicated that people rate squares as more masculine (power, strength) and circles as more feminine (warmth, cooperation) (Stroessner et al., 2020). To further reinforce how important shapes are, drawing circles and squares has metaphor-consistent (warm vs. competent/rigorous) effects on personality judgements. For example, Okamura and Ura (2018) found that participants responded that there were significantly more competent and rigorous people around them after drawing squares, compared to those drawing circles. Given program logics almost always use rectangles, there should be greater awareness of these gendered and metaphorical associations.

Review of the Meaning of Lines and Arrows

In relation to lines, humans prefer curved objects and shapes over angular ones (Bertamini et al., 2016), possibly because curving, waving, and serpentine lines are more reflective of nature than straight lines. Indeed, rounder and curved line segments are linked to positive emotions and are generally preferred over angular ones (Salgado-Montejo et al., 2014). However, straight lines are much more commonly used in program logics. Similar to rectangles, a straight line implies directness and order.

Arrows are line segments resembling the weapon shot from a bow, usually with only the arrowhead shown (and not the fletching at the rear). The arrow is used to show direction, position, or movement; that is, it’s a pointer to a particular direction through space. Although arrows are simple, they allow the communication of dynamic information in a static diagram, but do not describe any meaning in of themselves. They only convey meaning in relation to the elements to which the arrows refer (Kurata, 2007). One of the first usages of the symbolic arrow was in a 1737 treatise on hydraulic architecture, which used an arrow to indicate the flow of water and direction of a waterwheel’s rotation (Finkel, 2015). In the early 20th Century, the arrow was first applied to set theory and logic and represented a logical implication rather than a direction. For example, in ‘X → Z’, the meaning is ‘X implies Z’, or ‘Z is a consequence of X’ (Hilbert, 1922). The interpretation of arrow symbols depends on the reader’s background knowledge of the illustrated elements and what semantic role the symbol has in the particular situation (Kurata, 2007). This presents a difficulty because it is not clear what knowledge is necessary or sufficient to interpret the arrow symbol, including in program logics. In program logics, like other visual communications, the arrow is employed ‘multi-purposely without specification’ (Kurata & Egenhofer, 2006, p. 1). For example, Kurata and Egenhofer (2005) distinguish the semantic roles of arrow symbols into four types: property (e.g. direction and vector), annotation (e.g. labelling a component), action (e.g. motion of one component may trigger or be triggered by an interaction with another component), and association (e.g. presence of certain relation between components). The multiplicity of meanings provides a cognitive advantage because one basic sign can express different ideas (Kolchenko, 2015). However, in program logics, this also presents an issue of understanding. However, overwhelmingly, the role of the arrow is given by the visual, graphic, and textual context, which is cause and effect.

Problems With the Symbols in Program Logics

There are several potential problems with the current narrow usage of primarily rectangles and arrows to represent the relationship among outputs and outcomes in program logic diagrams. Paying attention to shapes is important, as it signals an awareness of the realistic relationships among activities and outcomes. Kushner (2016) argues the ‘logic model has allegiance to linear rationality and identifiable causal chains’ (p. 6). Using a limited number and type of standard shapes are not the cause of the issue but rather a symptom of several larger issues. These include:

(1) The linear and direct representation of outcome relationships is inappropriate for most social and education contexts, particularly complex ones. There is a general misrepresentation of highly complex, dependent relationships with unsophisticated cause-and-effect visuals.

(2) The desire to convey a program’s causal logic in a highly simplified form, often to busy senior leaders, means many subtleties and complexities (context, assumptions, timing, external influences) are missed and therefore unrealistic expectations of the efficacy of programs may be set up. This can lead to an over-confidence that programs will work in the straight-forward and timely manner that they are represented graphically.

(3) Many program logics are based primarily on hunches, aspirations, and/or individual experiences of program staff, rather than established evidence or specific, testable hypotheses. Overly simplified program logics become an extension of these aspirations.

It is fully acknowledged that it would be counterproductive for program logics to become overly complex visually, as some of their greatest strengths are simplicity and consistency. The aspiration of this article is not to advocate for program logic models to become comprehensive outcome measurement maps. Theories of change, impact pathways, or program logics are, by necessity, simplifications or models of the expected, actual, or aspirational. A full account of all the potential intended and possible outcomes and relationships would be unwieldy; however, there are many graphic alternatives that would assist in ensuring logics convey a proportionate amount of information compared to what is known or predicted about how program mechanisms work.

Visual Alternatives and Additions to Program Logics

To partially address the problems described above, there are alternate ways to portray and use program logics that may better encapsulate the complexity of human–program interactions and the likelihood of outcomes. Using these alternatives is meant to bring attention to the underlying complexities, and not add to them.

Circular Fields of Influence

In program logic, outcomes are sequential and consequential; that is, each outcome in a chain follows a previous outcome, but is also caused by it, akin to the Newtonian forces acting on billiard balls striking each other. However, outcome relationships are far more complex than an arrow would imply. Complex social processes and human/program interactions could be more genuinely represented by force fields or fields of influence (more akin to gravity) (see Figure 1). That is, an antecedent outcome exerts some degree of influence on a subsequent outcome, but the nature of this relationship is not linear or consistent, may overlap or interact with other antecedent outcomes, or may have minimal impact. Different sizes of waves could represent different strengths of association. Alternately, inspiration could be found in Lewin’s topology maps, which portrayed an individual’s life space and the field of forces that comprise it (Burnes & Cooke, 2012).

Figure 1.

Fields of Influence

Probabilities

When a program logic indicates through a solid arrow that an intervention or activity causes or leads to an outcome, any subtlety that the likelihood of the outcome being achieved is variable is diminished, as there is no indication that the relationship could be probabilistic. Adding an indication of a probability that an outcome will be achieved at the individual or group level (or a correlation coefficient from the research literature) would provide useful information to readers. A likely objection to including probabilities may be that it’s ‘not possible to know’ or ‘this is a logic model not a path analysis diagram’, which are fair but the alternative is to unwittingly (or purposely) reinforce the illusion of direct and certain causal relationships.

Assigning a probability or ‘conversion rate’ that the outcome will be achieved by that particular activity could assist in increasing understanding, and even in the absence of robust evidence, it would signal that programs will likely not have a uniform impact on participants (see Figure 2). The conversion rate could be expressed as a number between 0.0 and 1.0 (similar to Bayesian causal inference graphs or Directed Acyclic Graphs, for example, see Kelter (2022)), or discrete categories (low, medium, high). It is acknowledged that it will be relatively rare that an accurate evidence-based probability could be ascertained; however, simply by including the categorical descriptors would help overcome the tendency to interpret the relationship as direct, casual, certain, and all-inclusive. The addition of a probability would introduce a realistic sense of uncertainty and realism to the visualisation of the relationships.

Figure 2.

Conveying the Probability of an Outcome

Another alternative could be showing how multiple activities or antecedent outcomes in combination are required to achieve outcomes. This transferability is like the thermal conduction in physical objects and could be shown by lines of different gradients, similar to heat being transferred, and lost among different outcomes.

Graphs

‘Graphic formats present information in a way that is easier for people to perceive and reason about [than text]’ (Pinker, 1990, p. 1). For example, graphs can convey information about the expected distribution of impact in a program logic model (see Figure 3). For example, are the outcomes anticipated among program participants normally or exponentially distributed? In most social programs, it would be expected that many participants would exhibit or experience some change, but others may experience no change, and a small number would be predicted to experience substantial change (a normal distribution). Graphs could convey this information in a simple way, such as:

Figure 3.

Expected Distributions of Impact

Similarly, perhaps there is a threshold of program participation or level of an outcome that needs to be achieved before change is expected in a consequent outcome, which could be conveyed in a graph as well. Finally, the longitudinal impact of a program on participants can take many trajectories, including persistence, fade-out, emergence, and re-emergence (Bailey et al., 2020), which could be shown in program logics using different arrow shapes (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Longitudinal Impact Trajectories

Systems Map

Systems maps come in many forms but one particularly relevant type shows nodes and the connections among the nodes. For example, McGlashan et al. (2016) developed a systems map of obesity that visualises the structure of the causal loops impacting obesity, and is by necessity quite detailed and complex to accurately reflect reality. Aspects of this approach could be employed in program logics, such as differentiating among types of variables or outcomes: ‘in-degree or effect’ (impacted by multiple other variables), ‘out-degree or cause’ (impacts other variables), and ‘betweenness or mediators’ (connect variables). In-degree, out-degree, and mediator variables can be implied by the paths of arrows in many program logics or by different shapes. Simply by undertaking the exercise of classifying variables could assist in greater refinement of a program logic.

Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning and Artistic Approaches

The program logic model is a largely non-Indigenous focused tool that may not align well with Indigenous ways of knowing and learning. Yunkaporta (2009) describes these ways of knowing and learning, which include ‘symbols and images’, ‘non-linear’, and ‘learning maps’. Although Yunkaporta (2009) states that ‘Aboriginal thinking is often done in images or shapes rather than words…concepts can be shown this way’, (p. 5) in an educational context, this approach can have benefits more broadly, including in program logics. One example of this approach is visual storyboarding, for example:

• a program logic overlaid on a mountain, with the activities at the base of the mountain (LaFrance & Nichols, 2009)

• a theory of change centred on a road with the sun as the long-term outcome (Step-It-Up-2-Thrive Resource Center, 2022)

• a tree with social outcomes at the top and values and resources as roots (Carlson, Day, & Farrelly, 2021, p. 12)

• the building of a traditional Hawaiian structure (Ikeda, 2012)

• clouds, mountains, river, and sea (water cycle) (Lubeck et al., 2021)

• a story of change based on an interconnected, holistic. and circular diagram (Community First Development, 2020).

If the primary purpose of the program logic is to convey how a program will achieve its intended outcomes, then these story-centred approaches using real-world objects, landscapes, and metaphors could be beneficial for First Nations and non-Indigenous peoples. Also, by rejecting the Western focus on order and simplicity, the focus can shift to more holistic understandings of culture and context, acknowledging that many of the same limitations apply to this approach in terms of expressing complex program understandings. However, First Nations’ cultural symbols have the potential to provide deeper meanings to users of program logics in some cases, such as the medicine wheel (Jenkins et al., 2015). Finally, Dart and Gates (2024) apply a futures thinking approach to theory of change, and the iterative artistic expressions employ a range of visually striking imagery that incorporates multiple perspectives in portraying change processes.

Multiple Arrow Types

Mill et al. (2019) outline four types of program logic models, including a ‘type 4’ that can accommodate complex interventions. In this type, the authors use different types of arrows to communicate different relationships: dotted arrows convey the peripheral nature of contextual outcomes, while double-headed arrows convey how the emergence of proximal outcomes can strengthen the work of the project. They advocate for ‘different types of lines and arrows to express dynamic relationships and contingencies….and…to use diverse shapes such as triangles and circles…’ (p. 8). Similarly, class diagrams allow computer programmers to graphically represent a system or program through object-oriented modelling. In these diagrams, there are multiple arrow types for different relationships among objects, for example, generalisation (solid line and a triangle head), realisation (dashed line and triangle head), dependency (dashed line and arrowhead), and aggregation (solid line and diamond head) (Chen et al., 2022) (see Figure 5). A similar categorisation and visualisation could be extended to impact pathways, for example, ‘solid line/solid arrowhead’ for direct causal relationships; ‘solid line/no arrowhead’ for a correlation between variables; and a ‘solid line/diamond head’ for outcomes that require several other antecedent outcomes to occur. Certainly, a wider repertoire of line and arrow types could lend itself to greater refinement of relationships among outcomes in program logics.

Figure 5.

Different Types of Arrows From Class Diagrams

Pictographs, Icons, Colours, and Shadings

Pictographs may be beyond the ability of many program logic developers to draw or design themselves; however, with the widespread availability of icons, clipart, and other graphics, it is possible to include meaningful pictographs that help communicate complexity more artfully. For example, snakes () and ladders () for external influences that are barriers and enablers, respectively, or onramps and offramps to a highway. There are a multitude of examples of using icons and pictographs in program logics, for example, the Santa Cruz Museum of Art’s theory of change, which uses cartoons of humans and interactions (Spellerberg et al., 2016). To date, colour and shading in most program logics usually conveys little additional information, other than grouping sets of outcomes or cohorts. There is an opportunity to employ colours more usefully; for example, in other fields, colour diversification has been proposed to increase clarity and concision (e.g. in computer syntax highlighting as described in Patrignani (2020)), and colour gradation to demonstrate transition from one state to another (Widyasari & Yani, 2019). An important consideration in relation to this is visual accessibility standards to ensure program logics can be perceived by everyone, including those with visual impairments (e.g. minimum contrast ratios, considering colour blindness, and not relying on colour alone).

Ishikawa Fishbone Diagram

The Ishikawa Fishbone diagram is a tool for identifying the root causes of quality control problems (Ilie & Ciocoiu, 2010) (see Figure 6). Some evaluators have used Fishbone diagrams for other purposes, such as comparing case studies (Davey & Morell, 2020). Although Fishbone diagrams most often employ only lines and rectangles, what they do offer is an ability to add more detailed branches and sub-branches to represent deeper root causes or more subtle processes or inputs. This ability to convey deeper and more refined relationships visually could be useful in a program logic context.

Figure 6.

Example of an Ishikawa Fishbone Diagram

Metaphors

Most logic models rely on a linear, mechanistic representation of how interventions influence human behaviour, which often does not align with the complexity of those interactions. The use of extended metaphors can help communicate multiple aspects of program theory, such as the likelihood of impact or external influences. Metaphors have been used as a lens to understand qualitative data (Woodgate et al., 2021) and causal analysis (Hawkins, 2020, used a cake metaphor). Metaphors have also been used to increase the capacity to develop program logics, for example, using canoe building (Kuiper et al., 2020). In addition, metaphor has been used to describe program logics themselves, such as the logic model as a recipe (Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2015). There are opportunities to use metaphors within program logics more frequently, as they offer powerful communication tools and allow for deeper understanding. Metaphors are also useful in classifying programs; for example, the author has adapted Farazi et al. (2019) model of bodies of water to classify program types (see Banks et al., 2023). This could be visually used in program logics to metaphorically describe programs and their relative depth and breadth of expected impact.

Limitations

This article has proposed employing an expanded set of symbols to improve the accuracy of program logics and manage the risk of misinterpretation by non-evaluators. However, there are several limitations and drawbacks to this suggestion. First, the benefit of the current approach is its simplicity and consistency. The familiar rectangles and lines with arrowheads are firmly embedded in practice and changing this approach risks over-complicating program logics, and in addition, introducing new symbols would require efforts to achieve consistency and understanding. Introducing more symbols could also have the unintended consequence of reducing reduce understanding rather than increasing it. Second, there may be a limit to the degree of accuracy that is possible to convey. That is, one reason program logics don’t provide more nuanced symbology is because there the certainty of the connections among inputs, outputs, and outcomes is not available to include. Finally, there may be alternate ways to communicate the subtleties and limitations of causal or propositional program logics besides visually.

Conclusion

This article has provided an in-depth review of the visualisations currently used in program logic diagrams, which is a gap in the current literature. The intention is to raise awareness about the use of symbols and shapes and their meanings, and also to suggest a wider repertoire be considered. The American artist Al Held was quoted as saying, ‘We’re not going to get rid of chaos and complexity, but we can find a way to live with them’ (Rourke, 2005). Program logics are useful tools, but due to their often over-simplified construction of reality and limited visual vocabulary, are in danger of becoming Potemkin villages of evaluation; a false construct providing an external facade to an enormously complex underlying reality. This is not to say we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Program logics are enormously useful and their consistency and ability to convey complex relationships and processes simply is admirable. However, more considered use of these visual models, especially how they are constructed and understood, could be aided by an extended range of symbols, shapes, and colours. This is true for many theories of causality, including the classic Newtonian cause-effect, and the propositional approach. In the end, it will be up to individual evaluators and stakeholders to decide the best format of their program logic. English and Kaleveld (2003) advocate for the development of alternative program logics, followed by a decision on which logic solution is the best. If this advice is taken by program logic developers, it is hoped that at least some of these alternative program logics employ the ideas in this article.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Christopher Banks

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Alderman

(2015). Illuminative evaluation as a method applied to Australian Government policy borrowing and implementation in higher education. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 15(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1501500102

Bailey

D. H.

Duncan

G. J.

Cunha

Foorman

B. R.

Yeager

D. S.

(2020). Persistence and fade-out of educational-intervention effects: Mechanisms and potential solutions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 21(2), 55–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620915848

Banks

O’Brien

Miller

(2023). Generation STEM evaluation report 2019–22: Generation STEM. CSIRO. https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Education-media/GenSTEM/Annual-report-2022/Eval-report/23-00406_SC_REPORT_EvaluationGenSTEM_WEB_2301030.pdf

Beaton

(2016). BUZZING—a theory-based impact evaluation design. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 16(4), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1601600404

Berryman

Sweet

Wearne

Greenhill

(2013). Developing symbiotic clinical educators: Using program logic to evaluate a clinical education course. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 13(2), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1301300206

Bertamini

Palumbo

Gheorghes

T. N.

Galatsidas

(2015). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity? British Journal of Psychology, 107(1), 154–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12132

Brousselle

Champagne

(2011). Program theory evaluation: Logic analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.04.001

Burnes

Cooke

(2013). Kurt Lewin’s field theory: A review and re-evaluation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 408–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00348.x

Carlson

Day

(2021). What works? Exploring the literature on aboriginal and Torres strait Islander healing programs that respond to family violence. Macquarie University. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/what-works-exploring-the-literature-on-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-healing-programs-that-respond-to-family-violence/

10.

Carrion

A. J.

Miles

J. D.

Thompson

M. D.

Journee

Nelson

(2021). Program evaluation through the use of logic models. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 13(7), 789–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2021.03.006

11.

Chen

Zhang

Lian

Niu

(2022). Automatically recognizing the semantic elements from UML class diagram images. Journal of Systems and Software, 193(November 2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111431

12.

Cirlot

J. E.

(2013). A dictionary of symbols. Courier Corporation.

13.

Clements

D. H.

Swaminathan

Hannibal

M. A. Z.

Sarama

(1999). Young children’s concepts of shape. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/749610

14.

Community First Development . (2020). Story of change. https://www.communityfirstdevelopment.org.au/story-of-change

15.

Coşkun

Akande

Renger

(2012). Using root cause analysis for evaluating program improvement. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 12(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1201200202

16.

Dart

Gates

(2024). Incorporating futures thinking into the theory of change: Case and lessons learned from a social enterprise intermediary in Australia. New Directions for Evaluation, 2024(182), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20601

17.

Davey

M. E.

Morell

J. A.

(2020). Method for using rubric ratings on fishbone diagrams to compare case studies. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 16(34), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v16i34.581

18.

Dickinson

Adams

(2012). Building evaluation capability in the public health workforce: Are evaluation training workshops effective and what else is needed? Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 12(2), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1201200204

19.

Downing

Rogan

(2016). Evaluation as an integrated management tool: Embedding an evaluator into a program. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 16(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1601600202

20.

English

Kaleveld

(2003). The politics of program logic. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 3(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x0300300106

21.

Fanning

M. M.

(1997). A circular organization chart promotes a hospital-wide focus on teams. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 42(2), 243–254. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10167457/

22.

Farazi

M. S.

Gopalakrishnan

Perez-Luño

(2019). Depth and breadth of knowledge and the governance of technology alliances. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 54(October-December 2019), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.08.002

23.

Finkel

R. J.

(2015). History of the arrow. American Printing History Association. https://printinghistory.org/arrow/

24.

Gawaya

Terrill

Williams

(2022). Using rapid evaluation methods to assess service delivery changes: Lessons learned for evaluation practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 22(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x211057630

25.

Giessner

S. R.

Schubert

T. W.

(2019). Power and vertical positions in an organization chart: A pre-registered replication report of study 3a and a modification of study 1a, Giessner & Schubert (2007). Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.216

26.

Gilbreth

F. B.

Gilbreth

L. M.

(1921). Process charts. [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the American society of mechanical engineers. AMSE. https://www.thegilbreths.com/resources/Gilbreth-Process-Charts-1921.pdf

27.

Goodwins

Negi

Van Diermen

(2017). Gearing up for trade—evaluating Australia’s contribution to trade facilitation in South East Asia and the Pacific. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 17(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1701700106

28.

Guenther

Benveniste

Redman-MacLaren

Mander

McCalman

O’Bryan

Osborne

Stewart

(2020). Thinking with theory as a policy evaluation tool: The case of boarding schools for remote First Nations students. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 20(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x20905056

29.

Hawkins

A. J.

(2020). Program logic foundations: Putting the logic back into program logic. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 16(37), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v16i37.657

30.

Hawkins

A. J.

Bayley

(2025). Managing the risk of program failure: Propositional evaluation as a tool for risk management. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 25(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X241270560

31.

Heery

Naccarella

McKenzie

(2018). “Improvement focused” evaluation of place-based initiatives: An examination of three methodologies. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 18(3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x18793704

32.

Hilbert

(1922). Neubegründung der Mathematik. Erste Mitteilung. Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg, 1, 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940589

33.

Ikeda

(2012). Kino (an indigenous logic model). Pure Mana’o. https://puremanao.blogspot.com/2012/07/kino-indigenous-logic-model-post-1-of-4.html

34.

Ilie

Ciocoiu

C. N.

(2010). Application of fishbone diagram to determine the risk of an event with multiple causes. Management Research and Practice, 2(1), 1–20. https://mrp.ase.ro/no21/f1.pdf

35.

Institute of Museum and Library Services . (2015). Logic models. https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/logic_model_user_guide.pdf

36.

Jenkins

Robinson

Davis

(2015). Adapting the medicine wheel model to extend the applicability of traditional logic model in evaluation research. In Proceedings of the 2015 federal committee on statistical methodology (FCSM) research conference. https://www.fcsm.gov/assets/files/docs/F2_Jenkins_2015FCSM.pdf

37.

Kelter

(2022). Bayesan identification of structural coefficients in causal models and the causal false-positive risk of confounders and colliders in linear Markovian models. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 58(2022), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01473-w

38.

Kingston

(2016). Development of a child evaluation framework for early childhood services using deliberative democratic evaluation and the mosaic approach. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 16(3), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1601600304

39.

Kolchenko

(2015). The meaning of the arrow: Cognitive roles of graphic symbols in anatomy and physiology. HAPS Educator, 20(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.21692/haps.2015.024

40.

Kuiper

N. M.

Cash

H. L.

Welton

M. T.

Chung

(2020). Building capacity for logic models and evaluation planning using canoe-building concepts. Hawai’i Journal of Health & Social Welfare, 79(6 Suppl 2), 108–112. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32596687/

41.

Kurata

(2007). Arrow symbols: Theory for interpretation. Doctoral Thesis, Electronic Theses and Dissertations (Vol. 558). The University of Maine. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1580&context=etd

42.

Kurata

Egenhofer

M. J.

(2005). Structure and semantics of arrow diagrams. In COSIT’05, September 2005, Ellicottville, NY, lecture notes in computer science, 3693 (pp. 232–250). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/11556114_15

43.

Kurata

Egenhofer

M. J.

(2006). Ontology-based interpretation of arrow symbols for visual communication. In Andrienko

Andrienko

Jankowski

MacEachren A

(Eds.), GIScience 2006 Workshop on visualization, analytics & spatial decision support, Münster, Germany. https://kurata.fpark.tmu.ac.jp/research/YKurataMEgenhofer-VASDS06.pdf

44.

Kushner

(2016). The illogic of logic models. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 16(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1601600102

45.

LaFrance

Nichols

(2009). Indigenous evaluation framework book: Telling our story in our place and time. American Indian Higher Education Consortium. https://portalcentral.aihec.org/Indigeval/Book_Chapters/6-CreatingOurStory.pdf

46.

Zhao

Xie

(2010). Maximum packing densities of basic 3D objects. Chinese Science Bulletin, 55(2), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-009-0650-0

47.

Lloyd

Williams

Terrill

(2022). Critical appraisal of the establishment of a theory-informed evaluation capacity building function in a large government department. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 22(3), 142–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x221109311

48.

Lubeck

LaPointe

Martin Rogers

(2021). Theory of change: Mni Ki Wakan decade of water summit. Wilder Research. https://www.wilder.org/sites/default/files/imports/MniKiWakan_DecadeOfWaterSummit_10-21.pdf

49.

McDonald

Stirling

(2019). Evaluating the capacity building roles of the state and territory peak bodies in the Australian alcohol and other drug sector. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 19(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x18823569

50.

McGlashan

Johnstone

Creighton

de la Haye

Allender

(2016). Quantifying a systems map: Network analysis of a childhood obesity causal loop diagram. PLoS One, 11(10), Article e0165459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165459

51.

McMenamin

K. E.

McMenamin

Towers

(2023). An asset-based evaluation of a novel New Zealand rural health service. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 23(3), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x231175874

52.

Mills

Lawton

Sheard

(2019). Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: The logic of logic models. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(55), 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4

53.

Milstein

Chapel

(2019). Chapter 2. Other models for promoting community health and development|section 1. Developing a logic model or theory of change|main section|community tool box. Community Tool Box. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/overview/models-for-community-health-and-development/logic-model-development/main

54.

Morton

Cook

(2018). Evaluators and the enhanced commonwealth performance framework. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 18(3), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x18795539

55.

Nolan

Bridge

Holland

Whiteside

Baird

Andrews

Anita Lee

Komla

(2024). Utilising existing data for a pilot social return on investment analysis of the family wellbeing empowerment program: A justification and framework. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 24(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x241236779

56.

Okamura

Ura

(2018). Draw squares, and you will discover that many competent and rigorous people are around you: Shape priming influences impressions regarding the interpersonal environment. Psychological Thought, 11(2), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.5964/psyct.v11i2.290

57.

Onyura

Mullins

Hamza

(2021). Five ways to get a grip on the drawbacks of logic models in program evaluation. Canadian Medical Education Journal, 12(6), 96–99. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.71966

58.

Patrignani

(2020). Why should anyone use colours? Or, syntax highlighting beyond code snippets. ArXiv (Cornell University), abs/2001.11334. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2001.11334

59.

Pinker

(1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In Freedle

(Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315808178

60.

Renger

Atkinson

Renger

Hart

(2019). The connection between logic models and systems thinking concepts. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 19(2), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x19853660

61.

Renger

Foltysova

Ienuso

Renger

Booze

(2017). Evaluating system cascading failures. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 17(2), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1701700205

62.

Renger

Van Eck

R. N.

Basson

M. D.

Renger

(2023). A comparative case study illustrating the influence of a system perspective on the outcome evaluation of simple versus complex interventions. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 23(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x231160584

63.

Renger

Titcomb

(2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400202300409

64.

Roberson

Davidoff

Shapiro

(2002). Squaring the circle: The cultural relativity of “good” shape. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853702753693299

65.

Rourke

(2005). Al held, 76; Artist, known for enormous, robust paintings, taught art at Yale for 20 years. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-jul-29-me-held29-story.html

66.

Salgado-Montejo

Velasco

Olier

J. S.

Alvarado

Spence

(2014). Love for logos: Evaluating the congruency between brand symbols and typefaces and their relation to emotional words. Journal of Brand Management, 21(7-8), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.29

67.

Snow

M. E.

Snow

(2017). Interactive logic models: Using design and technology to explore the effects of dynamic situations on program logic. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 17(2), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1701700204

68.

Spellerberg

Granata

Wambold

(2016). Visitor-first, mobile-first: Designing a visitor centric mobile experience. [Paper presentation]. MW2016: The annual conference of museums and the web. Los Angeles, USA. https://mw2016.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/visitor-first-mobile-first-designing-a-visitor-centric-mobile-experience/index.html

69.

Step-It-Up-2-Thrive Resource Center . (2022). Theory of change. https://stepitup2thrive.org/downloads/0-thriving/0.1-theory-of-change.pdf

70.

Stroessner

S. J.

Benitez

Perez

M. A.

Wyman

A. B.

Carpinella

C. M.

Johnson

K. L.

(2020). What’s in a shape? Evidence of gender category associations with basic forms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87(Article 103915). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103915

71.

Tanuvasa

A. F.

Neale

(2015). Evaluation of Pacific cancer care navigation patient facilitation and support service. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 15(3), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1501500304

72.

Tuite

Dalla Piazza

Brandi

Pletcher

B. A.

(2020). Beyond circles and squares: A commentary on updating pedigree nomenclature to better represent patient diversity. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 29(3), 435–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1234

73.

Whitau

Bolton-Black

Slater

(2024). “Fanning the flame”: Aboriginal girls, women, and their communities define success for the Shooting Stars empowerment program. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 24(2), 124–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x241239972

74.

Widyasari Aditya Rahman

(2020). Flow infographic models to communicate information. In Nusantara science and technology proceedings (pp. 525–532). Future Science. https://doi.org/10.11594/nstp.2019.0470

75.

Woodgate

R. L.

Tennent

Legras

(2021). Understanding youth’s lived experience of anxiety through metaphors: A qualitative, arts-based study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(8), 4315. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084315

76.

Yunkaporta

(2009). Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface. Doctorial Thesis. James Cook University. https://eprints.jcu.edu.au/10974

The Shapes of Things: The Graphic Language of Program Logics and Several Alternatives

Abstract

Keywords

What We Already Know

The Original Contribution the Article Makes to Theory and/or Practice

Introduction

Review of the Symbology of Program Logics

Analysis of Common Symbols

Reasons for Using Rectangles and Arrows

Review of Related Diagram Types

Cross-Cultural Meanings of Shapes

Review of the Meaning of Rectangles

Review of the Meaning of Lines and Arrows

Problems With the Symbols in Program Logics

Visual Alternatives and Additions to Program Logics

Circular Fields of Influence

Probabilities

Graphs

Systems Map

Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning and Artistic Approaches

Multiple Arrow Types

Pictographs, Icons, Colours, and Shadings

Ishikawa Fishbone Diagram

Metaphors

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Note

References