User:Evarenon/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 4/Evidence

Evidence

What is evidence? What is good evidence?

A "better" evidence is one that is more precise, provides with more robust estimates and answers questions that other methods were not designed or ill-designed to address, like for example meta-analysis in medicine (Lau, Ioannidis and Schmid, 1998). Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Over the course of history, the concept of evidence has changed from a looser concept in which personal views were accepted as evidence into a much more evidence-based, concrete and reproducible studies approach. The latter does not refer to individual subjective opinions but rather to what the community of scientists accept as rigorous studies and evidence (Schaffer, 1992). The article also touches upon how social power and hierarchy used to influence who could and who could not provide with evidence so that "the vulgar could not be trusted to know themselves". Schaffer (1992) explores the historical self-experimentation of scientists to form a body of evidence that is somehow more trustworthy and holds greater moral authority. Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Nutley, Powell and Davies (2013) argue that the extent to which evidence is considered as valid considered depends on the context in which the evidence is used. The quality of evidence thus relies upon the context, what information the evidence provides and the reason we wish to include the evidence.

How much evidence is enough... in a trial? in sciences?

In criminal trials, there is a debate on whether evidences based on novel scientific methods (vs. ones based on established and accepted scientific methods), can be taken into account in the trial (Frye rule). Moenssens (1984) argued that the Frye rule should be abandoned and that the law community needs to re-think its procedure to determine the admissibility of evidences based on scientific experiences. Since 1993, courts have been debating on whether following the Frye rule or its rival, the Daubert rule, according to which the admissibility of evidence relies on the judiciary community acceptance, rather than on the scientific community acceptance (Cheng and Yoon, 2005). Cheng and Yoon (2005) have demonstrated that, in practice, the use of one rule or the other did not make any significant difference in the US trials' outcomes. Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How to produce reliable evidence? What are evidence-based disciplines (ex: medicine, education, management...)?

Evidence based research is one that places the results of a new study in the context of earlier similar studies. West, King, and al. (2002) argue that the health sector, could reach better decision-making outcomes if it were more evidence-based. Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Descartes, it is possible for individuals to access to knowledge via rigorous awake introspection. Following a rigorous logic in performing this introspection is sufficient to make its results true, in the highest sense of the term (SEP, 1997). On the other hand, a careful study of Kafka's Metamorphosis shows that one can provide solid evidence about the world by way of metaphors, allegories and symbols. This could be one way, if not the only one, to provide evidence on the "unexplainable" of human conditions, its contradictions and the tension of "irreconcilability between human aspiration and human reality" (Evans, 2013).

Vidal (2014) argues that mixed-methods that is, the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, generates more solide evidence in social sciences.

Is solid evidence enough to guide "good" decisions?

In medicine, what matters might not be the actual quantity of evidence but rather how this evidence is translated into proper decisions and solutions to collective issues. Using the knowledge translation framework would be a mode efficient way to translate evidence into solutions, according to David, Davis and al. (2002). Alington (2005) develops a similar argument in the field of education. He argues that evidence is not the only factor guiding political decisions so that, despite overwhelming evidence pointing in a direction, political decisions relying on ideology can lead to another direction. He provides with the example of the Reading Recovery intervention, which efficiency is strongly supported by evidence but that has not been expanded. Evarenon (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sackett (1997) also argues that evidence-based medicine, which combines current best evidence, individual clinical expertise and the real situation of patients, into decision-making, is more a advanced, effective and safer method. Pfeffer and Sutton (2005) argue that the adoption of evidence-based management, though often being ignored, can substantially change how managers think and act. As a result, the whole organization would be more effective and perform better.

Simons (2003) would disagree with Alington (2005) argues that the relationship between evidence and policy-making as well as practices can be very complex, affected by relationships, ideologies and professional preferences as much as by evidence. Consequently, the evidence-based approach is by no means a panacea for all.

Our reading list

Reading list

Reference and link	The main argument	Comparison with the other papers
Evidence-based practice: panacea or over promise? Simons 2003	Since the relationship between evidence and policy-making as well as practices can be very complex, affected by relationships, ideologies and professional preferences as much as by evidence. The author argues that the evidence-based approach is by no means a panacea for all. Lyu Muyao--C lmy (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	Compared to the second and third paper, this one explores evidence-based approach from a much broader sense, and it doubts about the outcome of practices only rely on evidence.
Evidence-based medicine Sackett (1997)	Evidence-based medicine combines current best evidence , individual clinical expertise and the real situation of patients in making decisions. Thus, it is more advanced, effective and safer. Lyu Muyao--C lmy (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	This one shares some views in common with the third article by referring to the fact that evidence-based method can improve efficiency and achieve better result by making wise decisions.
Evidence-based management Sackett (1997)	The adoption of evidence-based management, though often being ignored, can substantially change how managers think and act. As a result, the whole organization will be more effective and perform better. Lyu Muyao--C lmy (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	Like the second one, this paper evaluates all the other articles concerning about this topic. It stats with literature review but also involves many detailed examples.
Qualitative and quantitative research are fundamentally distinct and differences are paramount to the social sciences. Vidal (2014)	Both evidence from qualitative and quantitative data are crucial in the social sciences however both are incomplete by themselves. Thus to generate evidence in social sciences both must be applied. Sunnivaminsaas (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)	This paper explores how both quantitive and qualitative evidence must be used together within the Social Sciences
Using Historical Evidence Effectively	Historians use primary and secondary sources as evidence in their research. Analysis of historical events must be supported by accurate and reliable evidence. Thus, this evidence must be assessed critically and evaluated in relation to other sources. Sunnivaminsaas (discuss • contribs) 08:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	This paper concerns itself with how evidence is used and evaluated within History.
What counts as good evidence? Nutley, Powell and Davies (2013)	The main argument in this paper is that what is considered as valid evidence will depend on the context in which the evidence will be used. The quality of evidence thus relies upon the context, what information the evidence provides and the reason we wish to include the evidence. Sunnivaminsaas (discuss • contribs) 08:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	This paper examines what is considered as ‘good’ evidence. The paper is mostly concerned with evidence in the Natural Sciences.
Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History	The sole reliance on gathering "anecdotal evidence" in literary research has become obsolete with the rise of big data. Traditional, as well as new research methods, must coexist and complement each other, in order to create a comprehensive analysis of the data available to the contemporary historian. Tmlweigel (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)	In contrast to both other papers, focused on the gathering of evidence within the humanities and how methodologies must evolve (following scientific example).
Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury - What Counts as Evidence?	Explanation of evidence classification and ranking in vaccine injury related legal proceedings as dependant on peer-review. This sometimes becomes problematic in cases of uncertainty, where disagreements occur between the respective legal parties about said classification. Tmlweigel (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)	Like both other papers, shortcomings and difficulties of evidence informed decision-making outlined. Here with special emphasis on the impact on the individual as warranted by the sensitive nature of the topic.
Evidence-based medical anthropology	Suggestion of three different relationships between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and evidence-based medical anthropology (EBMA). EBM influencing and shifting power dynamics between actors within the medical world which ultimately necessitates a reevaluation of anthropological notions of evidence. Tmlweigel (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)	As with the second paper, a specific case examination is drawn upon to illustrate the main propositions. Similar to the first paper in that it discusses the influence of newly available forms of evidence, also contrasting so-called "anecdotal evidence" against the authority of in its nature antithetical EBM.
Grade: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations	-The article looks at the importance of the quality of evidence in the medical world and argues that a failure to check the reliability of evidence will lead to misguided recommendations. -It claims that an effective system to use when assessing evidence is the GRADE system -Generally, evidence based on randomised controlled trials starts off as high quality and evidence based on observational studies starts off as low quality, however this may change when the other factors of the system are taken in consideration Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
What is evidence-based education?	-Argues that education should be more evidence-based -Evidence-based education is a two step process: being able to effectively use already existing academic evidence; being able to create it in areas where there is a lack of high quality and highly reliable evidence Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC) -It is based on the problem solving and self directed model of education -Claims that educational research lacks a cumulative quality- due to the fact that not enough research is built onto already existing evidence Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Visual Evidence	-Claims that photographs embody a specified generalization of certain events, thus providing evidence for social science arguments. -Photographs are specific examples of the general argument -> they invite the reader to contextualize the textual argument as they offer a concrete portrayal of the abstract concept that is being discussed, thus adding to the overall credibility of the thesis -Therefore visual evidence is just as important to supporting arguments as any other type of evidence Teobogatu (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Active Video Games to Promote Physical Activity in Children and Youth	-Studies the impact of Active Video Games (AVG) in the physical health of children and youth -Provides a solution to the physical inactivity of young people through enjoyable voluntary physical activity Lcosier1 (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	What sets this paper apart from the two others is the idea that a serious problem might be tackled from unexpected angles: in this case the research paper showed that AVGs can be a solution to physical inactivity amongst the ranks of youngsters.
Using artificial intelligence to bring evidence-based medicine a step closer to making the individual difference	-The paper argues that it is very difficult to apply research evidence, which is carried on a population of individuals, to meet the needs of individual patients. The author proposes the use of techniques characteristic to the field of artificial intelligence in oncology. Lcosier1 (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	What strikes a note in this paper is the idea that in some disciplines population-wide research (research carried out on a big number of subjects) may produce output which is not applicable on individuals.
Toward Psychoinformatics: Computer Science Meets Psychology	- The paper suggests that computer science is able to aid in the study of psychology, in particular with finding evidence of the emerging psychological traits on heavily used devices or big data sets such as social media sites, or smartphones. -The author argues that computer science will have an impact to some degree in psychology in the upcoming years. Lcosier1 (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	This paper distinguishes itself by producing evidence that there is a flourishing connection between computer science and psychology, the so called interdisciplinary research of "Psychoinformatics".
Evidence Based Policy Making, J A Muir Gray	-This brief article aims to show that values or ethics will always have more power over policy making than evidence itself. Gray argues that the intrinsic political dimension of policy making means the researcher makes the decision but ultimately the politician 'takes' the decision.
The Evidence Information Service as a new platform for supporting evidence-based policy: a consultation of UK parliamentarians	Policy in the UK would benefit from a system where politicians/policy-makers interacted more with academics and researchers to advise policy making and increase the use of evidence based practice (EBP) in politics. Amberk23 (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	This article differs from the other two as it is a research paper on the practical applications of evidence in politics. The other articles look at others' research to analyse the use of evidence in their writing, so they can also assess the validity of research methods used.
Relationship between evidence and policy: A case of evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence?	Explores the use of evidence in public health policy. There is a lack of evidence-informed public health policy due to the focus of government funds on clinical research. Although public health does need to become more evidence-based, it needs to be built around a combination of evidence and the application of that evidence in relation to the context of public health issues. Amberk23 (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	Similar to the third article in the way it looks at the limitations of evidence in research and policy, as well as the strengths.
Work-based knowledge, evidence-informed practice and education	Argues that evidence collected from academic research is sometimes not as useful in shaping, for example, education as work-based knowledge. Also, it uses politics as an example to outline how the move towards evidence based practice may not create more effective policies - the values underpinning the research still need to be considered when uses evidence to shape political strategies as they can greatly affect the direction of policy. Amberk23 (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	This article looks at the limitations of using evidence-based practice, which the other two do not, giving us the other side of the argument to the use of evidence, specifically in policy.
The need to reform our assessment of evidence from clinical trials-Sean Bagshaw and Rinaldo Bellomo	The current approach to evaluating evidence in the field of medicine does not take into account all relevant factors. Currently, the merit of evidence is based on factors like sample size, use of random selection, and use of independent sample design. This, however, should be modified to include criteria such generalizability, reliability, and biological plausibility.	This article aims to highlight the shortcomings of evidence-based practice, which is also a central theme in the second article.
Why 'what works' won't-Gert Biesta	Recently there has been a trend supporting the implementation of evidence-based practice in education. Although pragmatic in fields like medicine, evidence-based learning should not be prioritized in education. Rather than following ‘what works’, teachers must make decisions based on each specific situation and educational desirability.	The difference between this article and the first is that the first, though critical of evidence-based practice, still advocates its use. The first article is a call for evolution while this article claims that evidence-based practice can not be the primary approach to decision making in education.
Cultural influence on the relative occurrence of evidence types-Jos Hornikx, Marianne Starren and Hans Hoeken	By examining what type of evidence people in different countries chose to use for persuasion (in broachers, posters etc) it appears that the value placed on any given form of evidence is culturally specific. For example: causal evidence is the most highly regarded evidence type in Netherlands while it is the least valued in France.	While the other two articles focus on evidence-based practice this article focuses on how evidence is interpreted. Rather than contemplating the power of evidence (idea that if something has significant evidence supporting it, it should be practiced) the aim of this article is to see if a particular type of evidence holds the same weight in different contexts.
The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics on prosecutors' charging decisions Spears and Spohn (1997)	Studying the charging decisions of Detroit prosecutors in sexual assault cases, Spears & Spohn found that victim characteristics (as opposed to defendant characteristics or "hard" evidence) -- age, gender, occupation, education, behaviour, etc -- were consistently linked to evaluations of convictability and were the only significant predictors of charging, drawing upon and reinforcing gender-normalised notions of "real rape" and "real victims". The susceptibility of sexual assault cases to subjective opinions makes non-socially-conforming individuals, as well as children, more vulnerable to injustice in court. Leewenyi (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	Spears & Spohn examine the consequences of evidence -- even in a situation where there is typically a lack of "hard" evidence (see Kalven & Zeisel's liberation hypothesis on juries' reference to personal values in the lack of sufficient evidence) -- being overshadowed by subjective beliefs largely construed by normalising socio-economic standards. Here, evidence requires a greater adherence to, but this also raises the question of how impartiality is achieved in an invariable lack of evidence.
A reconsideration of what constitutes "evidence" in the healthcare professions Pearson et al (2007)	Discussions on evidence-based healthcare debate upon what counts as evidence, and then largely hinge upon evidence drawn from controlled experimental research. Pearson et al argue that the notion of legitimate evidence should be expanded to include other sources, such as qualitative methods or experience, in order to widen the range of information and perspective available to health professionals and consumers to make informed choices. Leewenyi (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	Pearson et al argue against the common conception that quantitative studies are the definitive source of reliable evidence, and advocate for the inclusion of arguably more subjective forms of evidence.
Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions Rychetnik et al (2002)	Rychetnik et al postulate that decisions about public health interventions should be based on evidence that is not only credible, but complete and transferable (by studying the information on the intervention and its context so as to find out if its successes or failures will be applicable elsewhere). They recommend that evidence should be evaluated on their relevant stage of intervention development, and abilities to detect important effects, provide context, and address needs of stakeholders. Leewenyi (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)	Similar to Pearson et al, Rychetnik et al find a limitation in the contemporary application of evidence in their given context. They argue that the working definition of usable evidence must be expanded to include other parameters in order to better address the problem which the evidence attempts to solve.
Checking the Evidence: The Judge and the Historian (Ginzburg, 1991)	In a positivist approach, evidence is viewed as a direct link to reality, analyzed not as a system in its own right but as way of accessing reality. Within history, however, the approach to reality is not a direct one. Interpretation, as well as understanding of both the construction of evidence and external realities, are always required.The similarity between the historian and the judge is their ability to 'prove' that certain things happened in a certain way and including certain individuals. The article also discusses the connection between history and fiction, regarding the role of fiction as bringing to light the lives of those often forgotten by traditional historical disciplines. Here, fiction helps to overcome challenges such as lack of evidence on a certain topic, group or individual. Conjectures and context play an important role in historical reconstruction, allowing integration and linking of evidence. In reconstructing lives that have historically been overlooked, court records have shown themselves to be an important source of evidence, although the historical approach diverges from judicial practice.	This article discusses the use of evidence within the discipline of history. It rejects certain assumptions of positivism, arguing that history cannot regard reality as directly accessible through evidence. It also recognizes the role of fiction in reconstructing history. Reconstruction of historical context is particularly important, enabling integration of evidence in order to obtain a clearer picture of individuals in history and their relationship with this context.
Some Reflections on Evidence and Proof (Murphy, 1999)	This article argues that the science of evidence is important to law, particularly legal training. The introduction into legal education of a course on the science of evidence, dealing both with its practical and its intellectual aspects, is advocated. Furthermore, the article examines the rules of evidence in law, questioning some of its underlying assumptions. It also questions the idea of scientific rationalism as the only source of knowledge. Probability can be used in legal inquiries to provide or examine evidence, rather than trying to ascertain truth. However, Murphy argues that it can be dangerous to use mathematical models to reconstruct human behavior in the courtroom, despite the usefulness of certain statistical evidence. It is effective to construct an “inference network” which enables us to measure the strength of a case in relation to evidence and to see how the evidence is interconnected. When rules of probability are used to prove a legal case, they need to be modified to fit common sense expectations.	This article analyzes debates surrounding evidence in a legal context. It also discusses the application of probability rules to evidence in legal cases. Probability can be useful when examining cases, but mathematical rules should not be applied directly and without modifications where human behavior is concerned.
Evidence: philosophy of science meets medicine (Worrall, 2010)	This article argues that the practice of evidence-based medicine can be improved by examining the logic behind the relationship between theory and evidence. Current issues with evidence-based medicine originate from the excessive importance given to evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The central argument in favor of RCTs is that controlled groups account for all possible factors which might influence the outcome, erasing the need to rely on background knowledge or on any judgement. However, randomization cannot completely eliminate all differences between the groups investigated. The article then raises the question of which particular theory the RCT actually provides evidence for – is the right evidence for the right theory actually obtained? The trials only show the effectiveness of a particular way of treatment administered during a limited time frame to a particular set of patients, often compared to treatments with placebo. This is the problem of ‘external validity’ – can evidence gained from the trial be generalized and applied to the target population? The article suggests that firstly, the correct theory to be tested must be identified, and secondly, evidence from long-term treatment compared across relatively similar groups should be employed rather than relying solely on short randomized trials.	This article looks at evidence-based medicine from the perspective of the philosophy of science, examining the place of evidence in the practice of evidence-based medicine. Worrall argues that a reevaluation of evidence-based medicine is necessary, criticizing the use of randomized clinical trials as the only sources of evidence accepted in medicine.
The challenges of evidence, Dr.Ruth Levitt	Evidence is one of the most reliable basis for making policy and its 3 main characteristics are attributing causality, time log and good practice. It is contingent on circumstances, therefore we have to keep an open mind in regards to evidence and it’s interpretation 09:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The challenges of evaluating and improving evidence when research lacks reproducibility, Joshua D Wallach and Sanjay Basu	Epidemiologists face the challenges of improving and evaluating evidence “for or against the real world effectiveness of public health programs” It is improtant because it is necessary to support claims from past studies or change the a priori reasoning.09:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)