Whinges, Apples, and Evidence: Lenses of Value to Improve Use
This paper reframes the challenge of evidence use from a logistical problem to a question of value by introducing a framework of six "Lenses of Value"—Time and Temporality, Situatedness, Purpose, Pathways, Perspective and Positionality, and Emotions—that help diverse stakeholders understand and navigate their differing needs, much like selecting the right apple for a specific situation.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
For decades, a quiet frustration has simmered in the halls of research institutions and the offices of government leaders. On one side, scientists and data analysts pour years into creating rigorous, high-quality reports, only to watch them gather dust on a shelf. On the other side, the people who need to make decisions feel they are being handed tools that do not fit the job at hand. They ask for help solving a specific problem, and instead receive a mountain of perfect data that seems irrelevant to their immediate reality. This disconnect is not usually a failure of intelligence or effort; it is a failure of understanding what "useful" actually means. In the world of decision-making, information is not a universal object with a fixed value. Its worth depends entirely on who is holding it, when they are holding it, and what they are trying to achieve.
Two researchers, Venessa Lee Wells and Amy M Gullickson, set out to understand this persistent gap. They did not look for better ways to package data or build faster computers to deliver it. Instead, they asked a simpler, more fundamental question: how do people decide that something is good, important, or useful? To answer this, they combined a deep review of existing academic literature with a series of in-depth conversations with fifteen Australian leaders, data providers, and experts. They wanted to see the invisible rules people use to judge value. What they found was that usefulness is not a single trait but a complex judgment shaped by six distinct, interconnected factors.
The researchers identified these six factors as "lenses," each of which colors how a person sees the value of evidence. The first lens is time and temporality. This is not just about the clock on the wall, but about the horizon of a decision. A piece of information might be perfect for a long-term strategy but useless for a crisis that requires an answer in the next hour. If the timing of the evidence does not match the timing of the decision, the evidence fails, no matter how accurate it is. The second lens is situatedness, which refers to the specific place and context where the decision happens. A fact that makes sense in a laboratory or a national report might make no sense in a local community center with different resources and constraints. The value of the information is woven into the specific circumstances of the situation.
The third lens is purpose. People judge information based on what they are trying to achieve. A baker needs an apple that holds its shape in a pie, while a nutritionist might look for an apple with the most vitamins. If the researcher provides the apple with the most vitamins, but the leader needs the one that holds its shape, the evidence is rejected. The fourth lens is pathways, which concerns the process and sequence of how things are done. Sometimes the value lies in the journey of gathering the information, such as building trust with a community, rather than just the final result. A leader might see a slow process as a delay, while the provider sees it as a necessary step to ensure integrity.
The fifth lens involves perspective and positionality. This captures the role a person plays and their personal background. A leader wearing the "hat" of a budget manager will value different data than the same person wearing the "hat" of a community advocate. Furthermore, a person's identity, such as their gender or cultural background, can shape what they trust and what they feel is credible. A woman in a male-dominated field, for example, might feel she needs stronger proof to be heard than her male colleagues. The final lens is emotions. The researchers found that feelings are not just noise to be ignored; they are signals that reveal what people truly care about. Frustration, fear, or passion often point to the underlying values that drive a decision. When a leader feels angry about a report, it is often because the report threatens something they value deeply.
These six lenses do not work in isolation. They interact constantly, shaping and reshaping what counts as useful evidence. The authors suggest that the frustration on both sides of the table—the "whinge" from researchers and the "whinge" from leaders—comes from these lenses being invisible. Researchers assume their high-quality data is universally useful, while leaders assume their specific needs are obvious. By making these lenses visible, the researchers propose a way to navigate the tension. Instead of trying to force everyone to agree on what "good" evidence looks like, they suggest asking specific questions: Is the timing right? Does the context match? What is the goal? Whose perspective is missing? What process was used? And what emotions are at play?
The study does not claim to have solved the problem of evidence use forever. It offers a framework for understanding why the problem exists in the first place. It suggests that the solution is not better infrastructure or more resources, but a shift in how we talk about value. By recognizing that an apple is only useful if it fits the pie, the salad, or the sauce, we can stop blaming the fruit and start understanding the recipe. This approach allows leaders and researchers to see the hidden values driving their disagreements, turning a clash of frustration into a navigable conversation about what truly matters in a specific moment.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.