By now, lots of people have joined the evidence-based movement. But for various reasons, some of their efforts are ineffective and eventually grind to a stop. I found an article that does a great job of explaining why this is: Part of the problem is how evidence is presented (no surprise there). The report "When Districts Use Evidence to Improve Instruction" addresses the use of evidence in school reform, and was written by Meredith Honig (U of Maryland) and Cynthia Coburn (U of California, Berkeley). But there are lessons here for anyone interested in doing things that are truly evidence-based. Among the findings:
It's not always relevant. Despite high volumes of available information, people "frequently report limited access to evidence they consider relevant to their most pressing concerns."
It's not user-friendly. The word evidence may give the impression that it "somehow speaks for itself." But it's "usually riddled with ambiguity about which information to collect, what it means, and how to use it." Things making it worse include technical language, lengthy reports, and abstract concepts.
People should be involved. They develop more confidence in evidence when they actually participate in its gathering and translation.
Recommendations include "stronger roles for external support providers in helping ...translate evidence into usable forms." Amen to that. But I would take it one step further: Why can't evidence be presented in usable forms to begin with, so less translation is necessary? I don't believe this problem will go away unless (until) leaders and subject-matter experts within graduate schools, agencies, and businesses tackle this head on, and shift more of the burden to the folks who present evidence to the rest of us.
Comments