ABSTRACT What role does scientific evidence play in educational practice? Supporters of evidence-based education (EBE) see it as a powerful way of improving the quality of public services which is readily applicable to the education sector. Academic scholarship, however, points out important limits to this applicability. I offer an account inspired by Tullock’s theory of bureaucracy that helps explain EBE’s influence despite these limits. Recent configurations of EBE are an imperfect solution to 2 imperatives where policymakers are at an informational disadvantage: (a) guiding professionals working in the field and (b) evaluating evidence from academic researchers. EBE, especially in the form of RCTs and systematic reviews, offers a way of filtering a complex range of research to produce a determinate result that is transparent to policymakers. However, this impression of research transparency is misleading as it omits theoretical background that is critical for successfully interpreting the results of particular interventions. This comes at a cost of relevance to the frontline professionals whom this research evidence is supposed to inform and help.

中文翻译：

---

“什么有效”对谁有效？循证教育的政治经济学

摘要科学证据在教育实践中起什么作用？循证教育（EBE）的支持者将其视为提高公共服务质量的有力方法，该方法很容易适用于教育部门。但是，学术奖学金指出了这种适用性的重要限制。我提供一个受塔洛克（Tullock）官僚理论启发的报告，该报告有助于解释尽管有这些限制，但EBE的影响力。在决策者处于信息劣势的情况下，EBE的最新配置无法完美解决2项紧迫问题：（a）指导在该领域工作的专业人员，以及（b）评估学术研究人员的证据。EBE，尤其是以RCT和系统评价的形式，提供了一种过滤复杂研究范围的方法，以产生对决策者透明的确定性结果。但是，这种对研究透明性的印象具有误导性，因为它忽略了对成功解释特定干预措施的结果至关重要的理论背景。这是以本研究证据应该为之提供帮助的一线专业人员为代价的。