![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
EBP – evidence-based policy and practice – has generated intense controversy. A rough continuum of positions can be discerned: At one pole are “tough-minded” commentators distinguished by their support of EBP; however, there are serious internal differences in this camp, for some regard randomised field trials (RFTs) as the gold standard methodology that should generate the evidence required in EBP; while other “softer” commentators have a more nuanced position wherein the RFT is an INUS factor – part of a “causal cake” which requires many other support factors to be present before any generalisation can be made about a policy. The evolution of this softer branch of the tough-minded pole is traced, from Campbell and Stanley, to Cronbach and Associates, to Cartwright and Hardie. At the other pole are the tender-minded, many of whom are members of the philosophy of education community; they are sceptical about EBP, perhaps the most serious of their criticisms being that educational processes are not apt for causal investigation at all. The arguments that are offered in support of this position are judged to be deficient.
Acknowledgements
I thank Eric Bredo, Harvey Siegel, Adrian Simpson, and two anonymous referees, for formative comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. This discussion does not grapple with the complexities posed by the facts that educational policy decisions are also influenced by political, ethical, and religious considerations – and even sometimes by the need for personal aggrandisement.
2. See, for example, Hargreaves (Citation1997).
3. This was probably the first time a legislative body had proscribed what scientific research methods should be used. See Eisenhart and Towne (Citation2003), for discussion of various attempts to legislate on the nature of “scientific rigour”.
4. A detailed account of the US branch of this history is given in Eisenhart and Towne (Citation2003); and I have touched on the main events in Phillips (Citation2006, Citation2007, Citation2009).
5. In the interest of full disclosure, I must declare that I was a member of the panel that authored the NRC report. And as an indication of the rhetorical climate at the time, I can report that I was criticised by a colleague for being the source of passages in it that actually were not in it at all; he later revealed that he had never read the report.
6. Educational Researcher, 2002; Qualitative Inquiry, 2004; Educational Theory, 2005; Teachers College Record, 2005.
7. I also note that I was one of Cronbach’s associates.
8. Cronbach (and his associates) introduced the awkward terminology of UTOS and utos in their discussion of generalisability; see especially, Cronbach (Citation1982).
9. An INUS condition is an Insufficient but Necessary part of an Unnecessary but Sufficient condition for bringing about an effect. There can be several sets of INUS conditions that can bring about the same effect. These sets might, but might not, have some common factors (see Cartwright & Hardie, Citation2012, pp. 61–72).
10. Once again, the pertinence of James’s description of the mutual disdain of the tender- and tough-minded becomes apparent.
11. Limitations of space preclude me from pursuing the objection that a “way of knowing” ought to be “normative”, otherwise it could hardly be a “way”.
12. This is a reference to the work by Phillips and Burbules (Citation2000).
13. Other ingredients of the “causal cake” also have to be present, of course.
14. It is usual for these, as a group, to be referred to simply as “reasons”.
15. For an account of some of the issues here, see Maslen, Horgan, and Daly (Citation2009). The basic source of course is the essay by Donald Davidson, “Actions, Reasons and Causes” (Citation1963).
16. A recent collection of papers on this issue is D’Oro and Sandis (Citation2013).
17. There are many synonyms that could be used here in place of “caused” – for example, “what led her”, “what induced her”, “what produced the change”, and so on. These latter are lightly disguised causal expressions.
18. Technically, it is not the reason that is the cause, it is the event – the acceptance of the reason – that helps to bring about the effect.
19. Unless, of course, there was a separate causal cake operating, one with different INUS constituents – for example, she might have used a computerised fact checker that signalled a change was necessary, and she obeyed this command without understanding why it was necessary. In this case, the student still had a reason for acting, but it was a different reason – and without this reason, or the one in the previous case, she would not have acted at all.
20. One anonymous referee pointed to the difficulty of determining what constitutes “benefit”, “harm”, “effectiveness”, and so forth. This certainly is a problem, but it is one that equally besets both the tough- and the tender-minded, and it is too complex to be pursued here.
21. It can be noted here that there are many games in which, to win, one must act in a way that is contrary to expectations, that is, in a way that was not predicted. A sophisticated player takes account of this in dealing with an opponent – all of which is compatible with reasons being causes.