Evidence and its consequences in educational research

Abstract

We begin by arguing that the continuing dominance of ‘evidence‐based’ thinking in educational policymaking does serious harm to the notion of evidence itself; also that it brings a loss of coherence to education as a practice that might wish to be regarded as a coherent and research‐informed one. The second section of the article suggests that the invidious consequences of ‘evidence‐based’ thinking are likely to continue unless energetically challenged by a vibrant and robust understanding of education as a practice in its own right. In elucidating such an understanding, we investigate closely the notions of practice and practitioner, and their intrinsic connections, drawing on landmark researches on practice by authors like Alasdair MacIntyre and Joseph Dunne. Building on the understanding of education as a practice in its own right, the third section argues that the Dewey‐inspired notion of justified warrant, rather than proof or replicability, is more appropriate to research claims made in education. Here we focus in particular on action research, which has experienced recurring difficulties in having its research credentials recognised.

The post-truth tyrannies of an evidence-based hegemony

“…Policymaking reliance on evidence-based rhetoric also precludes the possibility of problematizing evidence, and rejects research that does not comply with its methodological prescription (Welch, 2015). These contemporary policymaking trends contribute to a restrictive and uncritical understanding of evidence (Malone & Hogan, 2020). There are also concerns around the veracity of particular "research-based" orthodoxies in policy and practice.…”

Responding to research evidence in Parliament: A case study on selective education policy

“…We imagine these four competing factors embedded with and influenced by the existing neo-liberal audit cultural discourse which has led to the call for 'evidence-based practice' (Ball, 2016). The previous section has already highlighted an unease within some of the academic educational research community of the attempt to reduce educational processes and practices to coherent linear relationships (Malone & Hogan, 2020;Mayer, 2021) and see any 'evidence' that emerges from these approaches as not valid. Dominant in this debate is educationalist Gert Biesta, who has confronted the 'what works' discourse with provocative articles on 'why what works, doesn't work' (Biesta, 2007(Biesta, , 2010.…”

“…It leaves in its wake a confusion among many policy makers and academics what might constitute good, or appropriate evidence; what may or may not be reliable, replicable and ultimately generalisable. Not wishing to promote or denigrate any particular research approach or the evidence that emerges, we see value in all methods and their thoughtful application, and therefore wish to move the debate away from linear suggestions of proof and replicability, turning instead to consider the usefulness of the Dewey inspired ‘justified warrant’ (Malone & Hogan, 2020). There is not the space in this article to explore the epistemological dimensions or ontological derivations of Dewey's concept—this has admirably been done by Malone and Hogan—but what it offers is the possibility to view all types of research and their evidence as equally valid and worthy of consideration in policy‐making decisions.…”

“…Although a politician might benefit from newsprint publicity and social media clicks by depicting a very broad community in the education sector through the lens of a 1950s sci‐fi film, this approach has defined an unhelpful binary positioning between what is regarded as progressive and traditional practice and equally what is acceptable evidence. Using this context as a point of departure, we shall explore the varied understandings of evidence from within the academic research community, while also highlighting the importance of legitimate or justified warrants (Gorard, 2002; Malone, & Hogan, 2020).…”

Digital stories for transition: co-constructing an evidence base in the early years with autistic children, families and practitioners

“…Space precludes a full rehearsal of the argument, but readers are referred to Guldberg (2017) and Guldberg et al (2017) for detailed discussion. In essence, autism education research primarily tends to be steered by the big "what works" questions of which Thomas (2012) and others (e.g., Biesta et al, 2014;Malone & Hogan, 2020) are so critical, along with concomitant expectations about the nature of research designs and high quality evidence. Autism education research is dominated by biomedical approaches that are often unconnected to education practice directly through either not being conducted in educational contexts (Parsons & Kasari, 2013) or with any involvement of educational practitioners (Guldberg, 2017).…”