Research School Network: Thinking clearer about context We should seek nuance but also clarity and simplicity. We should appreciate uniqueness but also similarity and comparability.

Using evidence effectively requires consideration of high-quality evidence alongside context. There is extensive writing about what makes quality evidence, but what is context, exactly?

We can think clearer about context by breaking it into three parts.

1. Fit with local need

Ensuring that a programme or practice fits with local needs is essential.

One avoidable mistake is starting with a solution rather than taking the time to understand local needs. There are two common ways this happens. First, it is easy to fall into the trap of focusing on exciting ideas like metacognition or oracy when more fundamental issues like poor behaviour need tackling before these areas can be developed.

Second, we must exercise caution when borrowing promising ideas from another context. Such borrowing is especially common if school-to-school improvement becomes ​‘do as I do’. I think this was very prevalent during the era of Teaching Schools, but it is now more of a consideration for trusts. Teachers moving between schools can also fall victim to this issue as they try to transfer a seemingly promising approach between contexts.

A good question to consider is, ​‘what is the best next step in development in this context?’ There will undoubtedly be some wrong answers, but there is typically a range of sensible solutions. Decision-makers need to balance the benefits of getting an even better fit with local needs against the additional effort this takes. The Explore section of the EEF’s implementation guidance can help guide these decisions, but a wise colleague recently explained to me how hard it is to do well, and the kinds of expertise required are thinly spread – so it ends up mostly done badly.

2. Fit with systems and structures

The next aspect of context is about how an idea will fit with systems and structures. These are the formal and informal rules, policies, procedures, resources, and relationships that shape how a school operates and teachers teach. Depending on how well they align, systems and structures can enable or constrain initiatives.

A valuable theory comes from the philosopher Professor Nancy Cartwright who has written about support factors. These are the conditions or resources that facilitate the delivery or effectiveness of a programme or practice but are not explicitly part of it. An intervention may work in one context because it benefits from ​‘hidden support factors’.

For example, a school may have a strong culture of collaboration among teachers, a headteacher committed to the initiative, or access to external funding or expertise that help them adopt a new intervention. If these support factors are missing in another context, the same programme or practice may not work as well or at all.

The fit with systems and structures is critical to understanding the overall feasibility. Doing a pre-mortem where colleagues try to envisage how an initiative might fail can be very useful. Crucially, thinking about fit with systems and structures often shifts our focus from ​‘will it or won’t it work’ to considering what additional support we might need to put in place to allow our new idea to work.

3. Fit with culture and values

The third aspect of context is about how an idea will fit with the culture and values of a school. These are the shared beliefs, attitudes, and norms that shape how a school operates and how teachers teach. Culture and values can influence the motivation, commitment, and collaboration of staff and students, as well as the expectations, goals, and outcomes of learning. Some examples of culture and values are:

• School vision and mission express a school’s purpose, direction, and identity. They reflect what the school stands for, what it aims to achieve, and how it intends to do so. A programme or practice should align with the school’s vision and mission, or at least not contradict them.
• School ethos is the spirit or character of a school that is evident in its daily practices and interactions. It encompasses aspects such as respect, trust, care, collaboration, and recognition among all members of the school community. A programme or practice should fit with the school ethos or help to enhance it.
• School traditions are the customs or rituals that are unique to a school and contribute to its sense of identity and belonging. They may include events, celebrations, awards or stories that reflect the school’s history, values, or achievements. A programme or practice should respect the school traditions, or help to create new ones.

These examples show that culture and values can vary across different contexts and significantly affect how a programme or practice works. Therefore, it is essential to consider how a programme or practice fits with the culture and values of the context where it is implemented and what adaptations or supports may be needed to make it work.

A programme or practice does not need to be a perfect fit with the context to add value – it just needs to be good enough. While I think context is crucial, it is helpful to consider the extent to which a programme or practice will fit with the context.

Context traps

Teachers should think hard about context, but we also need to be aware of context traps. These pitfalls can arise when we overemphasise or misuse context in our reasoning and decision-making. Kieran Healy’s famous sociology paper has inspired me to consider the different traps that we might fall into.

• The nuance trap is the tendency to demand more and more details, qualifications, exceptions, and caveats when evaluating a programme or practice, without considering whether they are relevant or valuable. This trap can lead to paralysis by analysis, where we lose sight of the big picture and the main goals. To avoid this trap, we need to focus on a programme or practice’s core features and mechanisms, and how they relate to our context. We can also avoid this trap by thinking in phases: focus on the main ideas early on and then build nuance in later stages if we still believe it will add value.
• The complexity trap is the tendency to assume that more complex programmes or practices are better or more effective than simpler ones or that our context is so complex that it requires a bespoke solution. This trap can lead to unnecessary complications, where we add layers of complexity that obscure rather than clarify the causal relationships and critical ideas. To avoid this trap, we must seek simplicity and elegance in our programmes or practices and our explanations of them. We need to ask ourselves: how do we keep things simple without making them simplistic?
• The uniqueness trap is the tendency to believe that our context is so unique or special that it cannot be compared or generalised to other contexts or that it cannot benefit from existing evidence or knowledge. This trap can lead to isolation and stagnation, where we miss opportunities to learn from others. To avoid this trap, we must recognise the commonalities and differences between contexts and remain open and curious about how others have solved similar problems or achieved similar goals. We also need to be humble and willing to share our successes and failures. The uniqueness trap can prevent us from learning from other schools or countries that have implemented programmes or practices successfully because we think that our context is too different or special for it to be relevant.

These context traps can prevent us from using evidence effectively and making good decisions about our practice. They can also hinder our communication and collaboration with colleagues who may have different perspectives or experiences. David Didau has previously explored the risks of nuance traps.

We can avoid these traps by adopting a critical and balanced approach to context. We should acknowledge the importance of context and the value of abstraction and generalisation. We should seek nuance but also clarity and simplicity. We should appreciate uniqueness but also similarity and comparability.