Department of Educational Methodology, Policy and Leadership, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA.
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA.
Prev Sci. 2020 Jan;21(1):53-64. doi: 10.1007/s11121-019-01042-0.
This scoping literature review of nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed articles from myriad disciplines examines usage of two sets of terms that are common to many researchers, but arcane to many practitioners. Aiming to inform researchers about how scholarly literature that invokes these terms might speak to practitioners, and resulting implications for practice, we review scholarly use of three practice designations (promising, evidence-based, best) and five cultural considerations for those practices (adaptation, competence, modification, responsiveness, specificity). In addition to scoping review methods, we apply social cartography and definitional traces. Findings drive our contention that "promising practice" is the designation that might provide practitioners with the most utility, rather than the frequent-often-unarticulated-uses of best and evidence-based. Likewise, we find copious evidence of cultural considerations being invoked without operationalization. Social cartography reveals few international partnerships and limited domestic leadership among 'leading' research institutions regarding the intersection of practice designations and cultural considerations. Themes from the definitional trace prompt us to invite scholarly debate about a ladder from 'promising' to 'evidence-based' to 'best' and to prompt researchers' efforts to transfer knowledge to practitioners.
这项范围广泛的文献综述，对来自众多学科的近 5000 篇同行评议文章进行了研究，考察了两组术语的使用情况。这些术语对于许多从业者来说晦涩难懂，但对于许多研究人员来说却很常见。我们旨在让研究人员了解引用这些术语的学术文献如何与从业者对话，以及对实践的影响，因此，我们回顾了学术文献中对三种实践设计（有前途的、基于证据的、最佳的）和对这些实践的五种文化考虑因素（适应性、能力、修改、响应性、特异性）的使用情况。除了范围广泛的审查方法，我们还应用了社会制图学和定义痕迹。研究结果使我们坚信，“有前途的实践”是最能为从业者提供实用价值的术语，而不是频繁使用但经常未明确表述的“最佳实践”和“基于证据的实践”。同样，我们发现大量证据表明，在没有实施的情况下，文化因素被频繁提及。社会制图学揭示了在实践设计和文化因素的交叉点上，很少有国际合作，也很少有“领先”研究机构在国内发挥领导作用。定义痕迹的主题促使我们邀请学术界对从“有前途的”到“基于证据的”再到“最佳的”这一阶梯进行辩论，并促使研究人员努力将知识转移给从业者。
