What Does Evidence Mean to Education?: Beyond the Critique of Evidence

 (1) Since the late 1990s an approach to education has developed called evidence-based education (EBE), suggesting that practices, policies, and research in education would dramatically improve if education were based on scientific evidence. This approach has many critics. This paper attempts to give a clear overview of the complex field of EBE and of evidence-orientedness in education. First, there is a discussion of the divergence in the functions of evidence in education (2). To consistently interpret these divergences, the paper discusses evidence-based medicine (EBM), the model for EBE (3), as well as the philosophical-historical context of the concept of evidence (4).<br> (2) In education, evidence has power not because of its genuine credibility but rather because of its political-rhetorical effectiveness. This effectiveness, especially its restriction of the professional judgment of teachers, is addressed in the critical discussion of EBE. Regardless of its basic legitimacy, the critique of evidence remains inadequate because it depends on ethical demands made of the teaching profession and does not take seriously the credibility of evidence.<br> (3) In the EBM, the role of the clinical professional was one of the main themes of discussion. In the original idea of EBM, evidence was considered a supportive basis in order that clinical judgment might meet its responsibility. During the development of EBM, however, the quest for evidence was channeled into a system of accountability leading to a standardization of clinical judgment. Why has the structure of evidence been so distorted? Mainly because of the conditions under which evidence is produced : in circumstances totally separated from the lived world in which responsibility is indigenous. <br> (4) In the deepest layer of ”evidence,” we find the meaning of self-evidence (Evidenz, évidence). This is why the call for evidence has a strong rhetorical effect. Cartesian philosophy and modern concepts of experimental sciences concur in the dismissal of the lived world as a source of evidence : Evidence is reserved for mathematical arguments or experiences in experimental settings. Edmund Husserl sharply criticized this dissociation of modern sciences from the life-world (Lebenswelt). Instead, he found the source of evidence in the life-world. Following this phenomenological conversion, we can find the source of evidence for educational activities in the life-world, especially in the learner’s experiences of learning.<br> (5) The relationship between education and evidence cannot be grasped in simple ways such as “evidence underpins education” or “evidence undermines education.” The field of evidence is split into two opposite directions: evidence from modern science and evidence from the life-world. Modern science emphasizes the accountability of educational practitioners, while the life-world emphasizes their responsibility. But even the latter does not directly underpin the education practice. It is true that education can only find confirmation in the learner’s experiences of learning. However, experiences of learning can occur independent of education. Education cannot rely on evidence directly. Due to the lack of any firm evidence, education is forced to be free. Free space for educational judgment is not an ethical postulation but rather a structural condition of education.