{"id":11,"date":"2024-07-31T14:34:31","date_gmt":"2024-07-31T13:34:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/?page_id=11"},"modified":"2026-10-19T18:11:46","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T17:11:46","slug":"ebp","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/ebp\/","title":{"rendered":"EBP+"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/jonwilliamson.uk\/ep\/images\/EBPlogo.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright\" src=\"https:\/\/jonwilliamson.uk\/ep\/images\/EBPlogo.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"154\" height=\"66\" \/><\/a>Evidential Pluralism provides a new account of how to integrate diverse evidence when evaluating whether a policy works. For an introduction to this approach to evidence-based policy, called &#8216;EBP+&#8217;, see:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Joe Jones, Alexandra Trofimov, Michael Wilde &amp; Jon Williamson: <strong><a title=\"Evidential Pluralism is a framework for understanding how to integrate different kinds of evidence when evaluating a causal claim. This introductory guide briefly sets out the approach and provides examples of its use.\">Integrating diverse evidence using Evidential Pluralism: introductory guide,<\/a> <\/strong> SSRN:<a href=\"https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=6848683\" data-wp-editing=\"1\">6848683<\/a>, Doi <a href=\"https:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.6848683\">10.2139\/ssrn.6848683<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This can motivate the use of qualitative evidence in policy evaluation. See, e.g.,<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Corrado Matta, Rosa W. Runhardt, Jon Williamson &amp; Dennis Beach: <strong><a title=\"Evidence-based policy is typically grounded in a narrow conception of evidence, one that prioritises comparative studies and quantitative meta-analyses as the preferred base for establishing causal claims. However, this prevailing theory of evidence\u2014often implicitly adopted in policy contexts\u2014faces serious limitations when it comes to capturing the complexity of social interventions, particularly in fields such as education. We argue that this narrow conception ignores the extensive volume of causal evidence that is generated in qualitative research fields such as meta-ethnography. Far from being epistemically inferior, we contend that meta-ethnographies could make an essential contribution to the evidential base for policy. By analysing meta-ethnography using the Evidential Pluralism framework (which scrutinises evidence of mechanisms alongside evidence of correlation), we show that meta-ethnographic studies can be fruitfully reinterpreted as providing evidence of a mechanism complex. This evidence can play a crucial role, as meta-ethnography can show how mechanisms enable, reinforce, or counteract a policy of interest. We illustrate this potential use of meta-ethnography with two examples, one from educational research (viz., a study of adolescent experiences of school belonging) and one from nursing studies (viz., a study of why some women continue smoking during pregnancy). While the article thus discusses these two fields in particular, we conclude by laying out the circumstances under which our results may generalise to other fields that make use of meta-ethnographies.\">Meta-ethnography and policy effectiveness: an Evidential Pluralism perspective<\/a><\/strong>, <em>Synthese<\/em> 208: 168, 2026. Doi <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11229-026-05808-2\">10.1007\/s11229-026-05808-2<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-127 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/files\/2024\/09\/divider.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"20\" \/><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-120 alignright\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/files\/2024\/09\/EPitSS.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"180\" height=\"270\" \/>More broadly, Evidential Pluralism provides a new way of thinking about causal enquiry in the social sciences. For introductions to this approach, see:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Yafeng Shan and Jon Williamson: <strong><a title=\"Evidential Pluralism maintains that in order to establish a causal claim one normally needs to establish the existence of an appropriate conditional correlation and the existence of an appropriate mechanism complex, so when assessing a causal claim one ought to consider both association studies and mechanistic studies. Hitherto, Evidential Pluralism has been applied to medicine, leading to the EBM+ programme, which recommends that evidence-based medicine should systematically evaluate mechanistic studies alongside clinical studies. This paper argues that Evidential Pluralism can also be fruitfully applied to the social sciences. In particular, Evidential Pluralism provides (i) a new approach to evidence-based policy; (ii) a new account of the evidential relationships in more theoretical research; and (iii) new philosophical motivation for mixed methods research. The application of Evidential Pluralism to the social sciences is also defended against two objections.\" href=\"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s13194-021-00415-z\">Applying Evidential Pluralism to the social sciences<\/a><\/strong>, <em>European Journal for the Philosophy of Science<\/em> 11(4):96, 2021.<\/li>\n<li>Yafeng Shan and Jon Williamson: <strong><a title=\"This volume contends that Evidential Pluralism - an account of the epistemology of causation, which maintains that in order to establish a causal claim one needs to establish the existence of a correlation and the existence of a mechanism - can be fruitfully applied to the social sciences. Through case studies in sociology, economics, political science and law, it advances new philosophical foundations for causal enquiry in the social sciences. The book provides an account of how to establish and evaluate causal claims and it offers a new way of thinking about evidence-based policy, basic social science research and mixed methods research. As such, it will appeal to scholars with interests in social science research and methodology, the philosophy of science and evidence-based policy.\" href=\"https:\/\/www.routledge.com\/Evidential-Pluralism-in-the-Social-Sciences\/Shan-Williamson\/p\/book\/9780367697228\">Evidential Pluralism in the Social Sciences<\/a><\/strong>, Routledge 2023.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Please see the <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/papers\/\">Papers page<\/a> for more references.<\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-127 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/files\/2024\/09\/divider.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"20\" \/><\/p>\n<p>For more detail see the research projects<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/jonwilliamson.uk\/projects\/isr\">Interdisciplinary Systematic Review: mechanistic evidence and epistemic justice<\/a> (UKRI, 2025-27)<\/li>\n<li><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/jonw\/evidential-pluralism-in-the-social-sciences\/\">Evidential pluralism in the social sciences<\/a> <\/strong>(Leverhulme Trust 2019-22)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-127 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/files\/2024\/09\/divider.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"20\" \/><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Evidential Pluralism provides a new account of how to integrate diverse evidence when evaluating whether a policy works. For an&hellip; <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/ebp\/\">Read more <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">EBP+<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40779,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-11","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/40779"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":201,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11\/revisions\/201"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/evidential-pluralism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}