Can we depend on evidence? It depends.

It depends. It depends on what you mean by ‘the evidence’, and ‘the facts’.

Is it simply what we know? And is it the last 5 years of what we know, or longer? Is it just what happened when someone was there to record as research and for it to be given the label ‘evidence’? Does it have a method that must be adhered to in order to be seen as ‘evidence’? Does it include a return later, say 5 then 10 years, to see if it is still the same? Do the findings hold for all places in all circumstances (like saying all fostering has better outcomes then Residential Child Care?). Can the ‘evidence’ be applied in different settings in a different way than the original supporting an assertion of being evidenced?

Then there’s the context. Did this lead to policy (‘evidenced based policy)? Was this undertaken to underpin a chosen policy (policy-based evidence)? Are they different? To what degree does the funding and framing determine the evidence (who is it for? What’s included and excluded?)

Then there’s the interpretation of the user. To what end do they select this evidence over other? To what end do they deploy it? Do they use it selectively to make a point or report the doubts? Look at the references and see a difference.

Is evidence ever neutral? Did what happened happen irrespective of the person and position? Or is it what we think we know? How do we know? Did we read the original? And apply what we know as a critique? Or a synopsis or passing reference, so our view is in reality received, what someone else thought of the ‘evidence’ to which we apply our critique?

This is to raise the question: who decides what facts, which facts, and decides how they are to be included/excluded?

A further question arises how will they be distributed and consumed? Is there a dissemination strategy? Does the evidence that is well known as a result of dissemination being funded outweigh that which did not have the benefit? If so, what is the consequence? What if something important is not distributed because it does not have the funds? What is the consequence of the limiting of choice?

Is there a delivery strategy? Who funds the roll out? Who makes the time to send people to acquire the learning?

What if a person or organisation with well-founded counter evidence and arguments does not agree with the evidence? Do they run parallel to the prevailing view, or are they opposed? What is the consequence for a child of the loss of the diversity?

The evidence you use depends on your choice, the source, interpretation, analysis.

Evidence is a social construction. Things can turn out differently. It depends.

It’s a battle of ideas. Evidence is dynamic. It changes. It depends.

What if the prevailing evidence is not accurate and includes errors? Later we find these errors (they do happen) what is our action?

So, selection and interpretation are critical factors. These are always contextualised by some kind of framework.

It is crucial that the paradigms before, beneath, behind, beyond, are made visible.  But they very rarely are? (To see how this can happen look at the Curtis Committee and report – was this the last time this happened in children’s social care? The heated debate between Winnicott and Bowlby is well documented and can be seen to frame the split between family and group care that we have inherited).

Objectivity is not to be assumed and must be achieved. We must analyse the evidence we decide upon; and be aware we are deciding within a paradigm. We must test our interpretation against other explanations. Not only does this rarely happen today, but there are also rarely funds included for the critique to be sought and considered. A peer reviews is not the same as critique.

Study the person and organisation undertaking the research and writing before you study the evidence.

Keep questioning. Keep testing.

What happened and why are frequently linked in ‘evidence’, but is the link causative? Was the achievement of the outcome through the method or something not included in the method and not included in the analysis because it was not included in the frame?

Then there is the inclusion, and evidencing, of experience. Some things don’t have an evidence base but have been found to ‘work’. Relationships are seen to be key today. How is it that there is evidence for relationships in families but said to not to be in Residential Child Care? It depends on how you are looking at it. It reveals as much about yourself as that which you are observing.