When is it justified to claim that a practice or policy is evidence-based? Reflections on evidence and preferences

debate When is it justified to claim that a practice or policy is evidence-based? Reflections on evidence and preferences

Background: There has been a widespread call to adopt evidence-based practices and policies in various fields, including healthcare, education, social work, criminal justice, business management, and environmental management.

Key points: This article discusses when it is justified for an individual or organisation to claim that a specific practice or policy is evidence-based. My argument is that this is the case if, and only if, three conditions are met. First, the individual or organisation possesses comparative evidence about the effects of the specific practice or policy in comparison to the effects of at least one alternative practice or policy. Second, the specific practice or policy is supported by this evidence according to at least one of the individual's or organisation's preferences in the given practice or policy area. Third, the individual or organisation can provide a sound account for this support by explaining the evidence and preferences that lay the foundation for the claim.

Conclusions and implications: My argument has at least three noteworthy implications. First, it is possible that some, but not others, are justified in claiming a given practice or policy is evidence-based. Second, being justified in claiming that a practice or policy is evidence-based does not imply that this practice or policy ought to be implemented, not even according to the claimant. Third, the individual's or organisation's preferences ought to guide the collection of evidence to help them identify what the best practices and policies are based on their normative stance.

Introduction

There has been a widespread call to adopt evidence-based practices and policies - that is, practices and policies that are supported by evidence - across multiple fields, including healthcare; education; social work; criminal justice; business management; and environmental management. In an era with post-truth politics and populism, the significance of evidence-based practices and policies becomes arguably more critical than ever. However, despite the pervasive advocacy for evidence-based practices and policies and the existence of robust studies on evidence conceptualisation and utilisation, there remains a pressing need for greater critical reflection on when an individual or organisation is justified in claiming that a practice or policy is evidence-based.

Clear, 2010; Sherman, 2013); business management (for example, Pfeffer and Sutton, 1999; Barends and Rousseau, 2018); and environmental management (for example, Bennett, 2015; Nichols et al, 2017). In an era with post-truth politics and populism (Ball, 2017; Crilley, 2018), the significance of evidence-based practices and policies becomes arguably more critical than ever. However, despite the pervasive advocacy for evidence-based practices and policies and the existence of robust studies on evidence conceptualisation and utilisation (for example, Jennings and Hall, 2011; Blum and Pattyn, 2022; Ouimet et al, 2024), there remains a pressing need for greater critical reflection on when an individual or organisation is justified in claiming that a practice or policy is evidence-based.

While it is true that anyone can claim that practices or policies are evidence-based, the critical question at hand is: when are these claims justified? This is the central inquiry that I aim to explore in the following discussion. My argument is that an individual or organisation is justified in claiming that a specific practice or policy is evidence-based if, and only if, three conditions are met. First, the individual or organisation possesses comparative evidence about the effects of the specific practice or policy in comparison to the effects of at least one alternative practice or policy. Second, the specific practice or policy is supported by this evidence according to at least one of the individual's or organisation's preferences in the given practice or policy area. Third, the individual or organisation can provide a sound account for this support by explaining the evidence and preferences that lay the foundation for the claim. Therefore, in short, my argument is that whether claims about practices or policies being evidence-based are justified depends on comparative evidence, support according to at least one preference, and the ability to provide a sound account for this support. It may be possible to imagine rare scenarios where my argument might not hold true, but I take this argument to be valid for at least all claimants who make their claims only because they believe they are true. If my argument is valid, then there are at least three noteworthy implications. First, it is possible that some, but not others, are justified in claiming a given practice or policy is evidence-based. Second, being justified in claiming that a practice or policy is evidence-based does not imply that this practice or policy ought to be implemented, not even according to the claimant. Third, the individual's or organisation's preferences ought to guide the collection of evidence to help them identify what the best practices and policies are based on their normative stance.

Below, I will begin by unfolding my argument about the conditions for being justified in claiming that a specific practice or policy is evidence-based, and subsequently I will elaborate on the argument's implications. However, before doing so, I would like to provide a list of the meanings I ascribe to key terms used in this article. I provide this list for the sake of clarity and in an attempt to avoid confusion about meanings. In all cases, I adhere to common meanings presented in the twenty twenty-three online edition of the Oxford English Dictionary:

· Belief (noun):'A proposition or set of propositions held to be true.'

· Evidence (noun): 'The available body of information indicating whether an opinion or proposition is true or valid.'

· Individual (noun):'A single human being, as distinct from a particular group, or from society in general.'

· Justified (adjective): 'Supported by reason, evidence, or right; warranted.'

· Organisation (noun):'An organised body of people with a particular purpose, as a business, government department, charity, etc.'

· Policy (noun):'A principle or course of action adopted or proposed as desirable, advantageous, or expedient.'

· Practice (noun): 'The actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method.'

· Preference (noun):'A greater liking for one alternative over another or others.'

Reflections on conditions

I now want to elaborate on the conditions for an individual or organisation to be justified in claiming that a specific practice or policy is evidence-based. Numerous beliefs are unjustified, so merely believing something is clearly not sufficient for being justified in claiming something. My argument is that claims about practices or policies being evidence-based are justified if, and only if, all the three earlier mentioned conditions are met. Thus, only meeting one or two of these conditions is not enough. I will now elaborate on the three conditions one by one.