In Search of Evidence

Chapter 2
subjective concept such as pain, so that it can be used globally as a hard outcome
measure for research. This is in contrast to the management practice, where much use
is made of multi-interpretable abstractions such as “dynamic capabilities,” “change
capacity,” “organizational learning,” and “level-five leadership.” Such abstractions are
far from unambiguous and difficult to operationalize and thus hinder the development
of a common frame of reference.
Evidence-based practice is about “best available” evidence. The third and most
important comment involves the assumption that evidence-based practice is only
possible if the discipline has a research practice with a high level of evidence. This is a
common fallacy. With evidence-based practice, whether it involves medicine,
education, justice, or management, it is all about the “best available evidence.” If
evidence is available on the basis of multiple systematic reviews of double-blind
randomized studies, that is great, but often the results of observational research,
surveys, or even case studies are the best available evidence. The level of evidence in
itself does not say anything about the extent to which an evidence-based decision is
possible, because a decision based on the opinion of experts can also be an evidencebased
decision. In many cases, there is even insufficient evidence, so a professional has
no option but to make a decision based on experience or intuition. Therefore, the
scientific status or developmental phase of a field does not deter- mine the applicability
of the principles of evidence- based practice. If research is conducted within the field,
and a decision is to be made, a professional can establish whether there is sufficient
evidence to underpin this decision and in doing so apply the principles of evidencebased
practice.
A Closer Look at the Practice–Knowledge Gap
The management field shows a broad consensus on the existence of a deep chasm
between knowledge and practice. Journals frequently feature articles on the gap
between practitioners and researchers and the authoritative Academy of Management
Journal even dedicated special issues to this subject. Most publications point out that
researchers and practitioners live in separate worlds and seldom communicate (Cohen,
2007; Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001; Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007; Shapiro, Kirkman,
& Courtney, 2007). Consequently, results from scientific studies are hardly ever applied
in practice. There is little consensus about the causes of this gap or about the best way
to bridge it.
As for the cause, many authors look to medicine again, and they are right to
observe that the culture among managers is very different from that of physicians.
Physicians regard medicine as a scientific domain, combining natural and social