Abstract

In the swiftly advancing field of monitoring and evaluation, there is an increasing impetus to transcend traditional evaluation methods in favour of more participatory and complexity-conscious designs. One option is the participatory monitoring and evaluation method known as Most Significant Change, a narrative-based evaluation technique employed in numerous international development initiatives. It is distinctive for its hierarchical narrative selection and the active engagement of stakeholders. Engaging stakeholders across several governance levels reveals the values prioritised by each. The chosen narratives, along with the selection criteria, are subsequently conveyed to all other levels to establish a shared understanding of the most favourable or unfavourable outcomes of an intervention. This article presents MSC: its definition, key characteristics, process, and applications. We conclude that MSC can significantly enhance evaluation practice. Its distinctive methodology and results render it suitable for integration with other techniques and approaches.

Definition of the Most Significant Change methodology

The Most Significant Change (MSC) methodology is a participatory monitoring and evaluation approach that emphasises the collection and analysis of personal narratives to discern the most substantial impact of a programme or intervention (Davies, 1996).

The procedure entails gathering substantial change (SC) narratives from the field and the methodical selection of the most impactful stories by panels of appointed stakeholders or personnel. ‘Seeking’ project impact initially engages the appointed personnel and stakeholders. Once we document the revisions, we convene a group to read the narratives aloud and engage in frequent, thorough discussions about the significance of these reported changes. Upon effective implementation of the method, entire teams concentrate their efforts on programme impact (Davies and Darts, 2005).

Overview of MSC Methodology

The MSC technique was developed by Rick Davies in the 1990s to address the difficulties of monitoring and evaluating intricate development programs. Since that time, the technique has been extensively employed by numerous organisations, particularly Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). In 2005, a comprehensive manual on utilising MSC was created. This handbook remains the most exhaustive resource for utilising MSC and serves as the foundation for much of this paper (Davies and Dart, 2005). It underscores the collecting of qualitative data via narratives of transformation, enabling stakeholders to articulate their views on the changes they deem most significant (Davies, 1996; 1998). MSC encompasses not only the collection and reporting of narratives but also the establishment of methods to derive insights from them, particularly regarding the similarities and variances in the values held by various groups and individuals (Bronwen, Kaye, & Theo, 2024).

It offers insights into repercussions, both planned and unexpected, but principally focusses on elucidating the values of various stakeholders. Although MSC alone is inadequate for impact evaluation, it serves as a crucial element in such evaluations by identifying and conveying types of experiences that can be corroborated and validated by alternative methods.

MSC can be used for continuous monitoring and evaluative reasons. MSC is frequently employed in cycles ranging from biweekly to annual intervals. A prevalent interval is quarterly to align with quarterly reporting. In emergency situations, monitoring cycles may occur more often. Decisions must be taken regarding the optimal reporting period, weighing the associated costs and advantages, while considering the reporting deficiencies of current M&E systems. Increased cycle frequency enhances familiarity with the MSC process but elevates costs regarding participants’ time. Regular reporting will also elevate the expenses of the process, regarding the time consumed by participants (Bronwen, Kaye, and Theo, 2024)

Key Characteristics

Participatory approach: The Most Significant Change (MSC) methodology engages stakeholders at all levels, including beneficiaries, in identifying and analysing changes. This guarantees that the assessment embodies the values and experiences of individuals directly impacted by the program (Dart, 2000).

Focus on stories: Rather than depending on established indicators, MSC gathers accounts that illustrate notable transformations encountered by individuals or groups. These stories offer rich qualitative data that helps explain the effects of treatments in a more intricate manner.

Selection Process: Following the collection of stories, a panel of stakeholders reviews them to ascertain which change is deemed the most consequential. This method encourages dialogue and reflection regarding the values and effects of the program.

Fundamental Steps in the MSC Process

Define Participants: Identify the stakeholders engaged in the evaluation, ensuring a varied array of opinions is represented.

Collect Stories: Acquire accounts from participants regarding transformations they have undergone due to the program. This can be accomplished via interviews, focus groups, or written submissions.

Facilitate Discussions: Coordinate discussions among participants to exchange their stories and reflect the importance of the reported changes.

Select the Most Significant Change: Employ a voting or consensus-building mechanism to ascertain the most significant change derived from the gathered narratives.

Analyse and Report: Evaluate the chosen narratives to extract insights into the program’s influence and communicate results to stakeholders.

Application and Utility of the MSC Approach

MSC is currently extensively utilised by development aid agencies, particularly Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). The original MSC Guide has been translated into 13 languages: Arabic, Bangla, French, Hindi, Bahasa Indonesian, Japanese, Malayalam, Russian, Sinhala, Tamil, Spanish, and Urdu, usually by organisations operating within those linguistic communities (https://mscguide-translations.blogspot.com/ ).

Since 2000, a global “community of practice” (CoP) has actively exchanged experiences regarding the application of MSC in various contexts. The email list utilised by this group is presently maintained on Google Groups (McDonald, Gabrielle, & Deane, 2009).

Recently, an online reference has compiled data on the worldwide utilisation of MSC (Willetts and Crawford, 2007). References are now accessible for over 290 publications and reports concerning the application of MSC. This encompasses both industrialised and developing nations and pertains to interventions across various areas, including health, education, agriculture, infrastructure, governance, and community development (Tonkin, Silver, Pimentel et al., 2021).

MSC is especially beneficial in situations when outcomes are intricate and challenging to assess using conventional quantitative techniques. This can be used across several sectors, such as health, education, and community development, to improve understanding of program effects and guide subsequent interventions (Bronwen, Kaye, and Theo, 2024).

By emphasising stories of transformation, MSC not only offers critical insights into program efficacy but also cultivates a culture of learning and introspection among stakeholders. This methodology serves as an effective instrument for organisations aiming to understand and communicate the impact of their work.

The MSC technique seeks to address knowledge deficiencies. Notwithstanding its acknowledgement and utilisation in diverse contexts, there exist knowledge gaps about the application of the MSC technique. This underscores the necessity for thorough investigation and documentation of practical instances to address existing gaps in the literature (Okubo et al., 2022). Ultimately, it innovatively integrates with additional methodologies. As the MSC methodology continues to improve, there is an increasing necessity to investigate its innovative integration with other evaluative techniques and approaches. This exploration guarantees that MSC continues to be a versatile and flexible tool capable of addressing the unique issues presented by various initiatives (Dart & Davies, 2005).

Conclusion

The MSC may be adjusted from the initial phase through to project implementation (Davies & Dart, 2005). The Most Significant Change (MSC) approach is increasingly utilised to evaluate development programs that involve multiple partners and stakeholder networks. This methodology is distinguished by its focus on narrative-driven insights, participatory engagement, and a comprehensive understanding of impact. The ongoing application and enhanced potential of this approach significantly contribute to the field of program evaluation by promoting learning, transparency, and the meaningful inclusion of diverse perspectives in assessing program outcomes. The MSC approach has achieved significant recognition and application across diverse sectors and nations. The strength of this approach is its divergence from conventional evaluation methods, as it avoids predefined and measurable indicators in favour of personal narratives that capture transformation.

This MSC employs a participatory approach, ensuring that program stakeholders, including beneficiaries, actively engage in the selection and analysis of stories, thereby promoting inclusivity and transparency in the evaluation process. Davies and Dart (2003) present a ten-step process that serves as a comprehensive framework for applying the MSC technique. The process involves introducing the approach, defining domains of change, systematically selecting significant change stories, and obtaining feedback. Each step is essential for maintaining the integrity and reliability of the evaluation. The participatory story selection workshop, which includes a diverse group of stakeholders, enhances the analysis by incorporating multiple perspectives and reducing potential biases.

The MSC approach has demonstrated its effectiveness; however, it is important to recognise the associated challenges and biases. This approach is applicable to various domains, including international development, healthcare, education, health promotion, and community development, highlighting its versatility. The MSC approach is continually evolving, necessitating an exploration of its integration with other evaluation techniques and methodologies. This adaptability guarantees that the MSC approach functions as a dynamic instrument, effectively addressing the distinct challenges presented by various programmes.

References

Bishop, A. (2024). Using Most Significant Change in final evaluations: A Mali case study. American University.

Bronwen, M., Kaye, S., & Theo, N. (June 2024). Evaluation methods and approaches: Most Significant Change. Retrieved from https://www.betterevaluation.org/methods-approaches/approaches/most-significant-change (Accessed 10 August 2025).

Dart, J. J. (2000). Stories for change: A new model of evaluation for agricultural extension projects in Australia. Melbourne: PhD thesis, Institute of Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne.

Davies, R.J. (1998), Order And Diversity: Representing And Assisting Organisational Learning In Non-Government Aid Organisations. PhD Thesis. University of Wales – Swansea. Retrieved from http://www.mande.co.uk/thesis.htm (Accessed 10 August 2025).

Davies, R.J. (1996). An Evolutionary Approach To Facilitating Organisational Learning: An Experiment By The Christian Commission For Development In Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/ccdb.htm (Accessed 10 August 2025).

Dart, J. J., & Davies, R. J. (2003). A dialogical story-based evaluation tool: The most significant change technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 137–155.

Davies, R.J., & Dart, J. (2005). The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique: A guide to its use. Retrieved from https://www.theoryofchange.org/wp-content/uploads/toco_library/pdf/2001_-_Davies_-_Most_Significant_Change_guide.pdf (Accessed 10 August 2025).

Major, L. & Swaffield, S. (May 2014). Experiences introducing the Most Significant Change

technique to support Leadership for Learning in Ghana. Commonwealth Centre for Education

Report No. 14. University of Cambridge.

McDonald, D.; Gabrielle, B., & Deane, P. (2009). Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods. Canberra: ANU E-Press. ISBN 978-1-921536-74-8.

Okubo, Y., Duran, L., Delbaere, K., Sturnieks, D. L., Richardson, J. K., Pijnappels, M.,and Lord, S. R. (2022). Rapid inhibition accuracy and leg strength are required for community-dwelling older people to recover balance from induced trips and slips: An experimental prospective study balance from induced trips and slips: An experimental prospective study. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 45(3), 160–166.

Tonkin, K., Silver, H., Pimentel, J., Chomat, A. M., Sarmiento, I., Belaid, L., Cockcroft, A., & Andersson, N. (2021). How beneficiaries see complex health interventions: A practice review of the Most Significant Change in ten countries. Archives of Public Health, 79.

Willetts, J., & Crawford, P. (2007). The most significant lessons about the most significant change technique. Development in Practice. 17 (3): 367–379.