Collaboration in 1999, and conducts reviews on the best evidence, analysing the
effects of social and educational policies and practices. Campbell Systematic
Reviewsis a peer-reviewed online monograph series of systematic reviews, pre-
pared under the editorial control of the Campbell Collaboration. Campbell sys-
tematic reviews follow structured guidelines and standards for summarizing the
international research evidence on the effects of interventions in crime and justice,
education, international development, and social welfare. More recently, it has been
developed in a UK Cabinet policy paper (2012)“Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing
Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials”published in collaboration with
Ben Goldacre and David Torgerson, arguing that Randomised Controlled Trials
(RCTs) should be used much more extensively in public policy. In March 2013,
Teach First in the UK launched“a new vision for evidence-based practice in
education and teaching”, attended by Secretary of State for Education Michael
Gove and introducing Ben Goldacre (2013), author ofBad Science, who presented
“Building Research into Education”.
The purpose of a systematic review is to sum up the best available research on a
specific question. This is done by synthesizing the results of many studies.
A systematic review uses transparent procedures tofind, evaluate, and synthesize
the results of relevant research. Procedures are explicitly defined in advance, in
order to ensure that the exercise is transparent and can be replicated. This practice is
also designed to minimize bias. Studies included in a review are screened for
quality, so that thefindings of a large number of studies can be combined. Peer
review is a key part of the process; qualified independent researchers control the
author’s methods and results. A systematic review must have: clear
inclusion/exclusion criteria, an explicit search strategy, systematic coding and
analysis of included studies and meta-analysis (where possible). Campbell reviews
must include a systematic search for unpublished reports (to avoid publication bias).
Campbell reviews are usually international in scope, a protocol (project plan) for
the review is developed in advance and undergoes peer review, study inclusion and
coding decisions are accomplished by at least two reviewers, who work indepen-
dently and compare results.
Davies (2003) develops a critique of new managerialism and of its implications
for the professional work of scholars and teachers, and then critiques
“evidence-based practice”as it is being developed for schools. Davies argues that it
is only possible to make sense of the policies and practices of the evidence-based
practice movement within the framework of new managerialism, and also explores
some of the tensions and contradictions between managerialism and gender reform
in educational contexts. Davies ends with a challenge to begin the work of gen-
erating the collective story through which we can dismantle the hegemony of new
managerialism and engage in the transformative work that will afford us a different
future. On the other hand, Clegg (2005) argues that a critical realist perspective can
contribute to a critique of evidence-based practice, while at the same time not
abandoning the idea of evidence altogether. The paper is structured around a
number of related themes: the sociopolitics of“evidence-based”; epistemological
roots and a critical realist critique; the debate in action, based on the recent
Part VI: Research, Institutional Evaluation and Evidence-Based Research 539