Search for a command to run...
<b>Background</b> Although evidence is widely valued in education, differing standards of what counts as acceptable, or valid, evidence have become a major barrier to tackling deep-rooted systemic challenges. The past decade has seen concerted efforts to build consensus and a unified definition, to guide better decision-making, evidence implementation and investment in education.<br></br> <b>Purpose</b> This study examined the factors that influence educational leaders’ perspectives about evidence generation and application, with the aim of deepening understanding of how these perspectives are formed and impact evidence-informed decision-making. Research questions were: 1) <i>How do educational leaders perceive valid evidence? 2) Which challenges do they perceive in applying it to practice? and 3) What role could evidence self-assessment tools play in supporting evidence applications? </i> <br></br> <b>Method</b> The study adopted a qualitative research design, with analysis drawing on data from remote interviews with 15 leaders of educational not-for-profit organisations across 10 countries engaged in advanced evidence-based practice.<br></br> <b>Findings</b> Participants’ definitions of evidence fell into three categories: a hierarchical approach, prioritising randomised controlled trials (RCTs); a pluralistic approach, valuing different types of evidence depending on context; and a multidimensional approach, integrating both the above, but difficult to operationalise in practice. All participants acknowledged the systemic governance challenges of evidence generation and application, noting that evidence was shaped by socio-political and funding agendas beyond their control. Findings are discussed in the context of an evidence paradox, where educational leaders aim for a holistic understanding, but find this pursuit threatened by systemic factors that favour evidence generation and application according to one of the three definitions.<br></br> <b>Conclusion</b> Resolving the evidence paradox requires a mind-shift among decision-makers and commissioners. This is likely to involve re-positioning systems as<i> learning systems</i> that pivot based on mistakes and adapt based on iterative learning.