ABSTRACT
EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE Since the 1990s there has been a rapid expansion in the adoption of evidence based practice for health and social care. It is argued that ‘evidence based practice means basing intervention on proven effectiveness derived from empirical research’ (Gray and Mcdonald 2006: 7). In the past, decisions made in practice relied less upon the influence of research and more upon previous knowledge gained in training, opinion (or prejudice), and information gained from more experienced colleagues (Trinder and Reynolds 2000). Advocates of this approach argue that practice should be based on the most up to date, valid and reliable research, while ironically, critics argue that there is ‘no evidence that evidence based practice actually works’ (Hek and Moule 2006: 5). Furthermore, it is argued that the ‘ontological and epistemological assumptions’ of evidence based practice, particularly in social work, are ‘inappropriate’ and too narrow (Gray and Mcdonald 2006). While some writers see professional accountability as a good reason to embrace evidence based practice (Rosen et al. 1999) others argue it is too restrictive (Trinder 2000b; Webb 2001). A good example of this criticism is provided by Williams and Garner (2002) who review the value of an evidence based approach to psychiatry. The authors argue that the emphasis upon ‘the evidence’ is restraining clinical practice and that a degree of professional consensus is necessary. Examination of the current debate highlights its contested and political nature. Within the criminal justice system for example, evidence based practice has been directly linked to the ‘what works’ agenda (Hopkins-Burke 2008). However, critics question this ‘so called’ objective application of rigorous scientific research findings to the phenomenon of offending behaviour (Bateman and Pitts 2005), arguing that the process actually entails subjectivity in the selection of research findings which is far from objective.
