Research School Network: Now – more than ever – we should… Think like a scientist, not a lawyer

These are difficult, uncertain times for schools. School life has distinctive rhythms both across the school day, week and year. Students and teacher alike thrive off this routine. Once schools stabilise their core functions, now – more than ever – we need to think like scientists, says Tom Martell.

A striking feature of much of the recent debate – both within and beyond education – is that many people have become more entrenched in their pre-existing views. This often takes the form of, ​‘now – more than ever – we should… [insert previous view]’. If you don’t believe me, take a few minutes to scroll through the Twitter feeds of prominent commentators.

Now, I think this is an interesting phenomenon, but I’m afraid to say that for me it is a classic Baader-Meinhof phenomenon – whereby when you recently learn something it suddenly appears everywhere. Step back from the substance of debates, and you will likely notice lots of arguments of this form. I’m sorry if this haunts you for the next week, but hopefully the regular prompts will remind you of what I have to say next.

Besides being an interesting quirk of humanity, I like to think of this a special case of a broader phenomenon of ​‘thinking like a lawyer, rather than a scientist’. Now, I have nothing against lawyers – some of my best friends are lawyers – but their way of thinking is the antithesis of evidence-based practice.

Lawyers start with their conclusion and then work backwards to find the evidence. At least in theory, scientists start with the evidence. They also try to make sense of all of the evidence, rather than just the evidence that supports their view.

A common way that people think like a lawyer in school is in developing their Pupil Premium Strategy. It is common to see plans developed followed by a quest for the supporting evidence. While this is clearly well-intentioned, it is at best just a waste of time and at worst likely to provide undue certainty to existing prejudices.

Another way of illustrating this challenge is to look at the EEF’s Teaching and Learning Toolkit. Below is a summary of the evidence about mentoring with each bar representing a study in the toolkit. A lawyer presenting the defence of mentoring would choose the green study, while the prosecution would choose the red study. Meanwhile, a scientist would start by looking at all of the evidence. Who do you think is likely to make the best decision?

Finally, here’s my own bias. Now – more than ever – we need to think like scientists, not lawyers.

Top tips to think like a scientist

• Be aware of your existing beliefs and biases
• Try to look at all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports your existing beliefs
• Actively seek evidence that goes against your case
• Recognise where there is limited evidence