Summary Evidence-Based Management
Week 1
Claim=a statement that suggests something is true.
Evidence=the available information indicating whether or not a claim is true.
Types of evidence:
1. Something that sounds sciencey but isn’t actually evidence. Complicated.
2. One person’s experience. Vested interests (who funded it?).
3. One scientific study. Ask questions about quality of research, journal, and producer
(independent?).
4. Multiple news stories about one scientific study. People think it’s true because they’ve heard it
often.
5. Multiple scientific studies compiled and analyzed. A systematic review answers a defined research
question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.
A meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.
A Critically Appraised Topic is a structured summary of evidence, usually focused on a practical
question, uses an explicit methodology, is research on existing published research, a short technical
report to help people make better and more informed decisions.
1) formulate answerable question (=concept operationalization), 2) choose theoretical
perspective/level of analysis, 3) search for best available evidence, 4) critically appraise evidence, 5)
write conclusion and recommendation.
Evidence-based practice=good-quality decisions should be based on a combination of critical
thinking and the best available evidence: the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of evidence
from multiple sources to increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome by taking a structured
approach. Involves asking, acquiring, appraising, aggregating, applying, and assessing. Regardless of
its source, all evidence may be included if it is judged to be trustworthy and relevant. No certainties
but probabilities: more or less likely.
All practitioners use evidence, but they pay little attention to quality and relevance. They use limited
sources and types of evidence, need for speed, biases (system 1 thinking; intuition, fast), fads,
incentives, erroneous believe of EBP use already, easily distracted, lack of critical skills, difficult to
access important organizational information.
Misconceptions: can’t use own experience, making perfectly-informed decisions, each organization is
unique so we cannot use the evidence, EBM is all about statistics, don’t have time for EBM, evidence
gives you the answer to your problem.
Biases: confirmation, hindsight, loss aversion, framing.
Fads lead to solutioneering: identifying a ‘problem’ by the absence of the ‘solution’ (e.g. we don’t
have a talent management strategy).
4 sources of evidence:
1. Scientific literature. Empirical studies published in academic journals.
2. Organization.
3. Stakeholders. Values and concerns. Affects how they tend to react to the possible consequences of
the organization’s decisions.
4. Practitioners. Tacit knowledge=professional experience is accumulated over time through
reflection on the outcomes of similar actions taken in similar situations, different from intuition and
personal opinion; specialized knowledge.
Week 1
Claim=a statement that suggests something is true.
Evidence=the available information indicating whether or not a claim is true.
Types of evidence:
1. Something that sounds sciencey but isn’t actually evidence. Complicated.
2. One person’s experience. Vested interests (who funded it?).
3. One scientific study. Ask questions about quality of research, journal, and producer
(independent?).
4. Multiple news stories about one scientific study. People think it’s true because they’ve heard it
often.
5. Multiple scientific studies compiled and analyzed. A systematic review answers a defined research
question by collecting and summarizing all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria.
A meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.
A Critically Appraised Topic is a structured summary of evidence, usually focused on a practical
question, uses an explicit methodology, is research on existing published research, a short technical
report to help people make better and more informed decisions.
1) formulate answerable question (=concept operationalization), 2) choose theoretical
perspective/level of analysis, 3) search for best available evidence, 4) critically appraise evidence, 5)
write conclusion and recommendation.
Evidence-based practice=good-quality decisions should be based on a combination of critical
thinking and the best available evidence: the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of evidence
from multiple sources to increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome by taking a structured
approach. Involves asking, acquiring, appraising, aggregating, applying, and assessing. Regardless of
its source, all evidence may be included if it is judged to be trustworthy and relevant. No certainties
but probabilities: more or less likely.
All practitioners use evidence, but they pay little attention to quality and relevance. They use limited
sources and types of evidence, need for speed, biases (system 1 thinking; intuition, fast), fads,
incentives, erroneous believe of EBP use already, easily distracted, lack of critical skills, difficult to
access important organizational information.
Misconceptions: can’t use own experience, making perfectly-informed decisions, each organization is
unique so we cannot use the evidence, EBM is all about statistics, don’t have time for EBM, evidence
gives you the answer to your problem.
Biases: confirmation, hindsight, loss aversion, framing.
Fads lead to solutioneering: identifying a ‘problem’ by the absence of the ‘solution’ (e.g. we don’t
have a talent management strategy).
4 sources of evidence:
1. Scientific literature. Empirical studies published in academic journals.
2. Organization.
3. Stakeholders. Values and concerns. Affects how they tend to react to the possible consequences of
the organization’s decisions.
4. Practitioners. Tacit knowledge=professional experience is accumulated over time through
reflection on the outcomes of similar actions taken in similar situations, different from intuition and
personal opinion; specialized knowledge.
