Making sense of evidence-based practice: a qualitative study of four UK professional bodies

For frontline professionals, the last three decades has seen a growing evidence movement. Through the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best research evidence, the claim by advocates of evidence-based practice (EBP) is that this can improve outcomes for service-users. With its origins in medicine, EBP has spread into other fields, such as teaching, policing, and social care. However, the rise of EBP has met with significant criticism. The idealised scientific model of EBP curtails professional discretion, according to critics, and fails to take account of the realities of workplace judgement. But if EBP undermines professional autonomy, why have some professional bodies promoted it? This thesis examines four such UK-based professional bodies: the British Psychological Society; the Chartered College of Teaching; the College of Policing; and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Through in-depth interviews, this qualitative study seeks to understand how practitioners and staff in professional bodies make sense of using research evidence. It contributes to the growing literature on practitioner perspectives, where there is relatively little research on cross-occupational differences and professional bodies. Whilst the findings of this study suggest that there can be significant inter-occupational differences, there were also some common themes, such as an intrinsic interest in research for reflective practice, and a cross-cutting appetite for greater heterogeneity in the types of evidence relating to EBP. The study has a range of implications for professional bodies and advocates of EBP, including moving beyond top-down externally imposed and homogenised EBP practices, towards more evidence pluralism and member-driven engagement with EBP.