What Evidence Based Practice is NOT:
- Scanning a few pages of Wikipedia, finding a few that seem to link to what you are doing and then claiming it is 'evidence based'
- Doing a quick, after the event, 'back of a fag packet' evaluation of a single intervention and then claiming it worked and provides an evidence base for all future similar initiatives (commonly called 'projects'...)
- Doing a serious and well thought through evaluation of an intervention but overlooking the need for any kind of control group - ideally a randomised one (commonly called 'pilots'...)
- Not knowing what a control group is... (or what 'randomised' means)
- Conflating correlation with causation
- Lurching to conclusions without any peer challenge on the methods you have used and the analysis you have drawn
- Confusing evidence (from scientific study) with (forensic) evidence
- Avoiding statistical analysis because the 'numbers are so small' and/or not knowing what role probability takes in all this
- Just putting a lot of spurious references at the end of your report
- Art, rhetoric, flimflam or politics
- Justifying what you feel like doing anyway and trying to pretend it is scientific!!!
Am I shouting loudly enough yet?