Why ‘What Works’ Still Won’t Work: From Evidence-Based Education to Value-Based Education

Abstract

The idea that professional practices such as education should be based upon or at least be informed by evidence continues to capture the imagination of many politicians, policy makers, practitioners and researchers. There is growing evidence of the influence of this line of thought. At the same time there is a growing body of work that has raised fundamental questions about the feasibility of the idea of evidence-based or evidence-informed practice. In this paper I make a further contribution to this discussion through an analysis of a number of assumptions that inform the discussion. I focus on the epistemological, ontological and praxeological dimensions of the discussion and in each domain identify a deficit. In the epistemological domain there is a knowledge deficit, in the ontological domain an effectiveness or efficacy deficit and in the practice domain an application deficit. Taken together these deficits not only raise some important questions about the very idea of evidence-based practice but also highlight the role of normativity, power and values. Against this background I outline the case for the idea of value-based education as an alternative for evidence-based education. As I am generally concerned about the expectations policy makers hold about what evidence can and should achieve in professional practices such as education, my contribution is primarily meant to provide educators and other professionals with arguments that can help them to resist unwarranted expectations about the role of evidence in their practices and even more so of unwarranted interventions in their practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    A (random) selection of journal titles devoted to the idea of evidence-based practice: The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine; The Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare; The Journal of Evidence-based Dental practice; Evidence Based Nursing; The Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work; Journal of Evidence Based Health Policy and Management; The International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring; The Journal of Evidence Based Library and Information Practice; The Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools.

  2. 2.

    Holmes et al. (2006) also use the notion of ‘micro fascism’ to criticise the discourse on evidence within the health sciences and make a convincing case for the use of this notion.

  3. 3.

    “Evidence.” The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. 2009. Retrieved September 15, 2009 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-evidence.html.

  4. 4.

    Whether it is possible to conceive of knowledge as ‘justified true belief’ is another matter. The issue has been a topic for discussion ever since Gettier (1963) provided examples of justified true beliefs that would not count as cases of knowledge.

  5. 5.

    This is a very brief summary of a point made in much detail by John Dewey—see for example, Dewey (1929).

  6. 6.

    This is an issue that has also troubled the interpretation of quantum physics.

  7. 7.

    I wish to emphasise that the point I am making here does not rely on a claim for the alleged superiority of a transactional epistemology. Rather than seeing my point as a general philosophical one, it actually centres on the question what follows if we apply an epistemology that can take experimentation seriously. The ‘case’ for a transactional epistemology is therefore only based on the attempt to overcome the tension—if not contradiction—between the experimental methodology that plays a central role in the ideas of proponents of evidence-based practice and the representational epistemology that they seem to employ in arguing for the alleged superiority of the knowledge generated in this way.

  8. 8.

    This argument can be read as an ontological or as methodological argument. Systems theory tends to take the methodological route, arguing that phenomena operate as if they were closed, or open, or recursive systems. In terms of notions of causality and how this plays out in social interaction, it can be helpful to make distinctions at the ontological level such as between a ‘causal ontology’ and a ‘social ontology’ (see Biesta 2010c).

  9. 9.

    A question I will not be able to deal with in this article is to what extent attempts to reduce complexity at the very same time increase complexity. For an interesting reflection on this issue see Rasmussen (2010).

References

  1. Ax, J., & Ponte, P. (2010). Moral issues in educational praxis: A perspective from pedagogiek and didactiek as human sciences in continental Europe. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 18(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Biesta, G. J. J. (2005). What can critical pedagogy learn from postmodernism? Further reflections on the impossible future of critical pedagogy. In I. Gur Ze’ev (Ed.), Critical theory and critical pedagogy today. Toward a new critical language in education (pp. 143–159). Haifa: Studies in Education (University of Haifa).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007a). Why ‘what works’ won’t work. Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit of educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007b). Bridging the gap between educational research and educational practice: The need for critical distance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Biesta, G. J. J. (2009). Values and ideals in teachers professional judgement. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism (pp. 184–193). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010a). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, Co: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010b). Five these on complexity reduction and its politics. In D. C. Osberg & G. J. J. Biesta (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 5–14). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010c). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In A. Tasshakori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 2nd edn (pp. 95–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  10. Biesta, G. J. J. (in press). An alternative future for European educational research. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Historiographie.

  11. Biesta, G. J. J., & Burbules, N. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carr, D. (1992). Practical enquiry, values and the problem of educational theory. Oxford Review of Education, 18(3), 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cornish, F., & Gillespie, A. (2009). A pragmatist approach to the problem of knowledge in health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(6), 800–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works (1925–1953) (Vol. 4). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn. Theory, prophecy and policy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gettier, E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guyatt, G., Cairns, J., Churchill, D., et al. (1992). Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA, 268, 2420–2425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hammersley, M. (2005). The myth of research-based practice: The critical case of educational inquiry. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(4), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammersley, M. (2009). What is evidence for evidence-based practice? In R. St. Clair (Ed.), Education science: Critical perspectives (pp. 101–111). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Holmes, D., Murray, S. J., Perron, A., & Rail, G. (2006). Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health science: Truth, power and facism. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare, 4(3), 160–186.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. D. Knorr & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed (pp. 141–170). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Osberg, D. C., & Biesta, G. J. J. (Eds.). (2010). Complexity theory and the politics of education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Otto, H.-U., Polutta, A., & Ziegler, H. (2009). A second generation of evidence-based practice: Reflexive professionalism and causal impact in social work. In H.-U. Otto, A. Polutta, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: Modernising the knowledge-base of social work (pp. 245–252). Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prenzel, M. (2009). Challenges facing the educational system. In Vital questions: The contribution of European social science (pp. 30–33). Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.

  27. Rasmussen, J. (2010). Increasing complexity by reducing complexity: A Luhmannian approach to learning. In D. C. Osberg & G. J. J. Biesta (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. 15–24). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based educational policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Smeyers, P., & Depaepe, M. (Eds.). (2006). Educational research: Why ‘what works’ doesn’t work. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Smith, R. (2006). Technical difficulties: The workings of practical judgement. In P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational research: Why ‘what works’ doesn’t work (pp. 159–170). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  31. St. Clair, R. (Ed.). (2009). Education science: Critical perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E., Petrosino, A., & Gandhi, A. G. (2008). The fairy godmother–and her warts: Making the dream of evidence-based policy come true. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(1), 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the symposium on “Research in the Educational Praxis” at Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, 8 October 2009. I would like to thank Petra Ponte for the invitation and would like to thank those attending for helpful feedback and comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gert J. J. Biesta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biesta, G.J.J. Why ‘What Works’ Still Won’t Work: From Evidence-Based Education to Value-Based Education. Stud Philos Educ 29, 491–503 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9191-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Evidence-based education
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Evidence-informed practice
  • What works
  • Epistemology
  • Ontology
  • Praxeology
  • Values
  • Value-based education
  • Power
  • Normativity