Knowledge and its classification system

The existing forms of knowledge are complex and varied, but from the perspective of the interaction between the subjective and the objective worlds, knowledge can be roughly divided into two types. (1) Knowledge-of-knowing-the-world. Knowledge-of-knowing-the-world (that is, the knowledge of the world and its operation laws that can be understood and grasped through the subjective world) is acquired primarily through individual experience or scientific research, with the aim of pursuing universal truths and emphasizing the description and interpretation of the world to understand what the world is and why. (2) Knowledge-of-transforming-the-world (that is, the knowledge existing in the subjective world about how human beings can use and change the world and achieve their own specific goals) mainly comes from practical means to achieve the goal of “goodness” and “beauty” with a focus on predicting and controlling the world to understand “how to change the world”.^{Footnote 2}

“Knowledge-of-knowing-the-world” can be roughly divided into two subcategories: (1) Knowledge of knowing the natural world. Nature has a vital importance to early human beings. Coupled with the fact that the laws of nature are relatively more stable and suitable for understanding, human beings pay greater attention to the knowledge of the natural world and master it better. Especially after the Renaissance, people began to use experimental methods to obtain scientific knowledge. Given that various fields such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and physiology have been independent, natural science has become the most important means for human beings to gain knowledge of the natural world. (2) Knowledge of knowing people and society. After the natural sciences, the methods and research paradigms of education, psychology, management, and law follow the natural sciences and were separated from the parent body of philosophy one by one, transformed from “social discipline” into “social science,” and became the main source of human knowledge (literature, history, philosophy, and other humanities are also concerned with people and society, but their main goal is not to produce systematic, verifiable “scientific” knowledge, so this paper will not discuss them).

“Knowledge-of-transforming-the-world” can also be roughly divided into two subcategories: (1) Knowledge of transforming nature. Such knowledge was required for domesticated livestock and crop cultivation in the early years of mankind, but it was not until more than 200 years ago that the Industrial Revolution and technological revolutions began in capitalist countries, and such knowledge began to be systematized, thereby forming “natural technologies” (including chemical technology, construction technology, metallurgical technology, nuclear energy technology, bioengineering technology, and communications engineering technology) or “engineering” knowledge (such as mining engineering, mechanical and electronic engineering, metallurgical engineering, and vehicle engineering).^{Footnote 3} These “natural technologies” or “engineering” in the form of knowledge are the main forms of “knowledge of transforming the nature” of human beings today. (2) Knowledge of transforming people and society. In the early years, human beings needed to deal with all kinds of interpersonal relationships and the allocation of national, market, and other technologies, but the so-called “social technology” began to form only after the emergence of contemporary psychotherapy technology, management, and governance technology, and education and teaching technology.^{Footnote 4} The “social technology” that exists in the form of knowledge is still very underdeveloped and is far from effectively changing the “knowledge-of-transforming-the-world” system of human beings today as effectively as “natural technology” and “engineering.”

Position of social science in the knowledge classification system

In summary, knowledge can be divided into two major categories and four subcategories. At present, natural science corresponds to the “knowledge of knowing the natural world,” social science to the “knowledge of knowing people and society,” “engineering” to the “knowledge of transforming the natural world,” and “social technology” to “the knowledge of changing people and society.” According to this knowledge classification criterion and by referring to the Catalog of Degree Awarding and Talent Cultivation issued by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China in 2022, the 13 categories of philosophy, economics, and other fields are roughly positioned in different locations of the same coordinate system, with the aim of providing a general picture of the specific pattern of such a knowledge division (see Fig. 1).

Most of the knowledge of social science is located at the junction of the first and second quadrants in the classification system of subject knowledge and includes both knowledge of knowing people and society, as well as knowledge of changing people and society (Fig. 1). Compared with natural science, the degree of separation between the knowledge-of-knowing-the-world and the knowledge-of-transforming-the-world is much lower for social science.

First, the knowledge of social science to understand the world is “softer” than that of natural science. Social science has no such knowledge as Newtonian mechanics or Einstein’s theory of relativity, and a crisis of repeatable validation in the field of research also occurred recently. However, the social sciences follow the research paradigm of natural science (the so-called “naturalized social science” has emerged in the present era, see Yin and Zhao, 2017), and its knowledge system can also self-accumulate and pass on from generation to generation. Theoretically, social science will eventually understand people and society as efficiently as the natural sciences if given enough time.

Second, the ability of social science to transform people and society lags behind that of natural science to transform the natural world. Although the so-called “social technology” and “applied social science” are involved in changing one’s self and society, most people’s practice still mainly depends on the “practical wisdom” provided by Aristotle more than 2000 years ago, that is, on how to apply practical knowledge, intuitive ability, or comprehension experience in the course of practice.

Practical wisdom generally has the following characteristics: (1) Practical wisdom is dynamic, dependent on specific situations, and devoid of universal laws; it embodies changeability, vitality, poeticism, and artistic empirical knowledge. (2) Practical wisdom is silent or unspeakable, representing tacit knowledge that defies logical expression in words but can only be conceived and not conveyed. (3) Practical wisdom is intuitive; it is primarily derived from an individual’s innate intuitive response and unique acquired experiences as well as their irrational reflections on these experiences. (4) Practical wisdom is personal; each person possesses distinct ways of thinking, personal charm, value orientation, and behavior style. Consequently, practical wisdom inherently bears a profound “personal nature” and forms an integral part of one’s unique self. Engaging with others’ practical wisdom or learning from them can be challenging, just as it can be difficult to impart one’s own practical wisdom onto students.

Relying on practical wisdom for transforming people and society leads to the following problems: in the human knowledge system, the “knowledge of changing people and society” in social science is difficult to accumulate and pass on from generation to generation compared with the three other kinds of knowledge, and each individual in each generation must experience again to obtain such knowledge. Thus, the development speed of social science is slow.

The main reasons for the tenuous effectiveness of today’s social science practices are thus: human beings lack effective “knowledge of changing people and society,” and such knowledge is far behind the accumulation and development speed of other knowledge. To get rid of this dilemma, social science should learn from natural science, and separate “social engineering”^{Footnote 5} from social science and social technology, and transform people and society as directly and effectively as natural science engineering (i.e., “natural engineering”).

Evidence-based social science is the “social engineering” of practical wisdom

Even if human beings acquire the “knowledge-of-transforming-the-world” directly and effectively, that knowledge is still only knowledge. As Karl Marx said, “the problem is to change the world.” The deeper reason of the difficulty of social science practice effectiveness is that it has not changed human and social knowledge systematization and has not opened the “last kilometer” from “practical wisdom” to “intelligent practice.”

Aristotle once divided human life activities into “production” (poiesis) and “practice.” (praxis) “Production” refers to the production activities of foreign objects, and the knowledge of guiding “production” is similar to the “natural engineering” of changing the natural world as it is called today. “Practice” refers to its own activities, mainly ethical and political practice, and the knowledge that guides “practice” is similar to the “practice of social science” or “social engineering” that is said today to change people and society (see Fig. 2). “Natural engineering” is a process of creating artificial products with expected use value according to the principle of natural science, with natural technology as an intermediary and the goal of a group of ideas as a basis. “Social engineering” involves the process of practical activities to adjust social relations, coordinate social operation, transform the social world, with social science as the theoretical basis and social technology as the intermediary (Tian, 2006).

Today’s “natural engineering” has been greatly changing the world in the process of integration, innovation, and practice and gained great achievements and social reputation. Conversely, “social engineering” is still mainly at the philosophical terminology level. The practice of people in daily life still chiefly depends on the “practical wisdom” obtained from very slow development, primarily through personal experience or word-of-mouth transmission. As a result, although human material life is extremely rich and the knowledge of the entire world has also come a long way, human beings are not much wiser than the ancients in dealing with their own and social-related issues. People today may not be happier than the ancients, and no one dares to confirm that they know more about human nature than Confucius or Shakespeare.

Therefore, the concept of “practical wisdom” is not exempt from philosophical speculation; it is a dynamic and intuitive phenomenon that can be likened to a personal mysterious “black box.” Essentially, practical wisdom offers no additional insights beyond the definition that it pertains to “knowledge about practice,” which may raise concerns about tautology. In the real world, individuals with practical wisdom align their conscious or unconscious actions with scientific principles through their practice. (1) Practical wisdom encompasses more than just dynamic experience; it also comprises explicit, objective, and universal “procedural knowledge” on “how to do.” (2) Practical wisdom need not remain silent; rather, it can be subjected to scientific inquiry using rigorous methodologies and described in explicit language while being supported by research evidence. (3) Practical wisdom emerges from both intuition and experience as well as collective research findings generated by generations of scientists employing empirical scientific methods. (4) Although possessing a personal nature, practical wisdom can also be openly stored within a globally accessible database for others’ learning and dissemination purposes. Furthermore, concrete and actionable scientific evidence can be transferred or translated into practical contexts to effectively address real-world problems.

The practical dilemma regarding the effectiveness of social science is not an insurmountable problem. Just like “natural engineering,” human beings possess the ability to transform people and society through “social engineering.” Our “knowledge of changing people and society” should not be considered an elusive form of “practical wisdom” that can only exist within individuals without accumulation over time. It is entirely feasible to unlock this “black box” to widely disseminate both the “practical wisdom” it contains and its application (see Fig. 3).

Evidence-based medicine, dating back to the 1980s, permeates evidence-based social science in the fields of psychology, social work, pedagogy, management, economics, and political science and may be one of the keys to solving this problem. Its evidence-based concepts, methods, standards; research transformation; post-effect evaluation; continuous improvement; and practice model of aiming at absolute perfection can provide important references for alleviating and even solving the dilemma of the effectiveness of social science practice.

Transition from evidence-based medicine to evidence-based social science

After the two world wars, Western economies gradually recovered and investment in public health services increased year by year. In the United States, for example, from the 1960s onwards, the government launched Medicare for elderly citizens and Medicaid for low-income individuals to promote social welfare. However, despite high investment in healthcare, costs have risen rapidly with per-capita healthcare expenditures among the highest globally. Unfortunately, this high level of investment has not translated into improved health outcomes as many members of society continue to suffer from poor health conditions (World Health Organization, 2001). Some critics attribute these issues to poorly regulated doctors who wield significant power over patients due to their highly specialized expertise and barriers to entry that limit competition within their profession. These physicians may provide unnecessary services or fail to use best practices due to laziness or outdated knowledge resulting in significant losses of life and property.

Popular discontent eventually led to the enactment of new legislation. In 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act was passed, aiming to transform the existing healthcare system and implement a comprehensive reform of hospitals. Subsequently, in 1983, the renowned Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) system was introduced, revolutionizing government and insurance company reimbursement methods for healthcare services. While this resulted in a significant reduction in government expenditure on healthcare, it also adversely affected hospital profits. Consequently, hospitals sought alternative strategies such as joint ventures, mergers, and management optimization to bridge this gap by enhancing medical efficiency and reducing costs. This gave rise to the formation of health maintenance organizations and other medical consortia known as managed care within this context.

Managed care primarily employs the following strategies to accomplish its objectives: (1) instituting organizational structures to streamline doctor-patient management and reduce administrative costs; (2) allocating a portion of insurance funds towards disease prevention initiatives; (3) implementing rigorous oversight of medical processes, mandating the utilization of existing and optimal treatment methods to ensure cost-effectiveness. The adoption of this methodology gave rise to the emergence of evidence-based medicine, which has garnered simultaneous recognition from both official bodies and the general public, rapidly evolving into a sweeping evidence-based practice movement within the entire medical domain.

There exist numerous definitions of evidence-based medicine, with one of the most renowned ones proposed by David L. Sackett, widely recognized as the ‘father of evidence-based medicine’. In 1996, he published an article defining evidence-based medicine as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients”. The following year, he further refined this definition in the book Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM, which he edited, stating that evidence-based medicine means “integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research” (Sackett et al., 2000). Evidence-based medicine offers a systematic approach to clinical decision-making in medical practice and represents the prevailing direction of clinical medicine in the 21st century. The New York Times magazine also acknowledged its significance by ranking it among the most groundbreaking ideas in 2001 (Hitt, 2001).

Evidence-based medicine integrates the clinical expertise of physicians with the most robust research evidence, ensuring that researchers, patients, and doctors are all given due consideration (Wang, 2006). Specifically, researchers focus on addressing practical issues by providing research evidence to resolve problems; doctors adhere to or reference relevant treatment guidelines or research evidence throughout the entire process of diagnosis, treatment, evaluation, and prognosis; patients’ values and subjective preferences are highly regarded, enabling them to actively participate in treatment decisions based on evidence and select their preferred treatment plans (refer to Fig. 4).

Evidence-based medicine eliminates the bias of individual experience, ensuring that treatment practices are solely based on rigorous scientific evidence and effectively integrating research and practice in the medical field. It not only advocates for treatment to be guided by the best available evidence but also provides a method to ensure adherence to such evidence. Proponents of evidence-based medicine globally collect, evaluate, and compile research evidence into extensive databases (such as Cochrane Database, Campbell Database), which serve as reliable sources for recommending optimal evidence-based approaches to doctors or patients worldwide for specific diseases. In theory, any doctor can practice evidence-based medicine regardless of their geographical location, as long as they have internet access.

After the emergence of evidence-based medicine, the concept of “evidence-informed practice” swiftly gained traction, giving rise to a robust movement towards evidence-based practice across various disciplines. This transformative shift can be likened to a boulder cast upon calm waters, initially rippling through the core medical field at lightning speed, resulting in the establishment of evidence-based cardiovascular medicine and evidence-based nursing among other disciplines. Subsequently, this momentum rapidly disseminated to peripheral areas such as evidence-based psychotherapy and evidence-based social services. Ultimately, it permeated throughout the broader realm of social sciences, fostering emerging disciplines like evidence-based education, evidence-based management, and even culminating in the formation of an overarching field known as evidence-based social sciences (refer to Fig. 5).

Connotation of evidence-based social science

Evidence-based social science posits that practical wisdom can be obtained through scientific research and be accumulated and passed on like natural science knowledge. The practical effectiveness of social science is problematic, mainly because a gap exists between people’s research and practice in changing people and society: (1) The field of research pays attention to facts, pursues “truth,” and holds that practitioners rely on superficial, fragmented, and unproven personal experience; (2) the practice field considers value, pursues “good deeds” and “virtues,” and complains that researchers do not ask about human sufferings, but pursues the purity and precision of variables; and (3) To some extent, the “disconnection” between the two leads to the situation wherein social science practitioners still rely on the “practical wisdom” of individuals and carry out the practice of uncertain effectiveness according to common sense.

Evidence-based social science is a combination of social science research and practice carried out by practitioners in the field of social science, such as the best evidence provided by researchers and the practice guide, standard, or evidence database coordinated by the researchers, with the active cooperation of the service object (which refers to the individual or group of individuals or groups served by the practitioners and who are called consumers, customers, visitors, or patients). It is a new paradigm that promotes more effective social interventions by encouraging the conscientious, judicious, and explicit use of the best available scientific evidence in professional decision-making (Zarghi and Khorasani, 2018). Reorganize researchers, practitioners, service objects, and managers to implement the specific “five-step approach” (see Fig. 6): (1) to put forward specific questions; (2) obtain the best research evidence available at present; (3) strictly evaluate the quality of the evidence retrieved from the study; (4) translate and use the evidence to solve specific problems; and (5) assess the effectiveness, safety, and applicability of the entire practice, unify research and practice, provide a feasible and effective way to realize the social engineering of practical wisdom, and enhance the effectiveness of social science practice in real life (Yang, 2010; Yang and Ye, 2012).

Characteristics of evidence-based social sciences

Evidence-based social science is a manifestation of the “social engineering” in the practice field of social science in the new era, thereby embodying the spirit of the times of truth-seeking, democracy, efficiency, justice, and sharing in the age of globalization. Moreover, evidence-based social science is the opposition and unity of freedom and nature, truth-seeking and goodness-pursuing, individual wisdom and collective wisdom, autonomy, and supervision, the universal and the special (see Fig. 7).

First, evidence-based social science is the unity of freedom and nature. The said social science is the concept of pursuing effective practice and is also a practical framework to ensure the effectiveness of practice. This science stresses that practitioners should follow the scientific laws discovered by researchers and fully respect the individual experience of the practitioners, the policy considerations of managers, and the subjective preferences of the subjects of practice (Yang and Ye, 2012). Emphasis is placed on the fact that the final decision of any individual practice is the result of the collaboration of the above four parties. Evidence-based social science is a highly inclusive decision-making framework that not only considers the objective law of human and social development but also considers the subjective will of all parties and finally realizes the harmonious unity of the laws of nature and free will.

Second, evidence-based social science is the unity of truth-seeking and goodness-pursuing. The said social science requires practitioners to follow the meta-analysis results of all current high-quality studies to ensure the “goodness” of practice by studying “truth.” The best evidence is disseminated free of charge around the world in the form of a database, and anyone with Internet access can retrieve vast amounts of quality resources, thereby ensuring that global citizens, regardless of location or finances, have access to the most effective services in a fair manner. The practice process of evidence-based social science embodies the belief that “goodness” is the ultimate goal of “truth” and “truth” is the means to achieve “goodness.”

Third, evidence-based social science is the unity of individual wisdom and collective wisdom. The evidence of evidence-based social science combines all relevant research in the world and is the result of the collective wisdom of numerous researchers in related fields for generations. The practice of any single evidence-based social science is supported by the wisdom of countless pioneers. Evidence-based social science does not deny the importance of individual intelligence. As the basic unit of performing evidence-based social science is always a single practitioner, they will unconsciously brand themselves in practice. In this mode of practice, collective wisdom condenses and expands individual wisdom. Individual wisdom is integrated into collective wisdom, constantly sublimating and condensing and keeping pace with the times, such that collective wisdom more perfectly fits in the current situation of practice.

Fourth, evidence-based social science is the unity of autonomy and supervision. Practitioners are often experts. In the process of practice, they have a certain degree of autonomy and sometimes even dominate the entire process. However, this kind of autonomy often goes hand in hand with the privacy and randomness of the practice process, so the managers of the “third party” cannot supervise the practical process in depth. Evidence-based social science requires practitioners to follow the best evidence available for practice, make the once-private practice process open and transparent, and give managers the opportunity to cut into practice for full supervision. The externalization and standardization of this practice process will help to better protect the rights and interests of practitioners. If practitioners follow the best evidence for practice, then they will be exempted from accountability and problems will be properly solved after analyzing the cause, even if unexpected adverse results occur.

Finally, evidence-based social science is the unity of the general and the special. A contradiction seems to always appear when the social sciences attempt to guide specific and living special practices with equalized and rigid universal law. However, evidence-based social science provides an effective way to solve this contradiction. It uses meta-analysis (or systematic review) to synthesize individual studies into general conclusions, and “derivates” the general in the special. Through the continuous accumulation and refinement of research, evidence-based social science makes the scope of application of universal law increasingly accurate and better guides special practice. In the process of promoting and facilitating the research and practice of evidence-based social science, the mutual transformation of the general and the special can constantly improve the quality and effectiveness of practice.

The essence of evidence-based practice lies in guiding practice through the study of evidence. On one end, research is objective, scientific, rigorous, data-driven, and quantitative; on the other end, practice is subjective, dynamic, artistic, and qualitative. Therefore, the implementation process of evidence-based social science is the seamless integration of science and humanity, as well as the harmonious fusion of research and practice, thereby naturally unifying the aforementioned five contrasting themes.

For instance, an example of evidence-based reading teaching can be seen in the “National Reading Panel” in the United States. They have conducted a significant number of experiments—up to 100,000—and have identified five crucial skills for children’s effective reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Through years of scientifically based research on the practice of reading instruction, these skills have been shown to be critical to early reading success. In addition to this example, the What Works Clearinghouse created by the U.S. Department of Education provides a practical guide specifically addressing the reading comprehension issues of children. It offers four specific recommendations: Teach students academic language skills, including the use of inferential, narrative, and vocabulary knowledge; Develop awareness of the segments of sound in speech and how they link to letters; Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words; and Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Research has shown that when reading teaching is carried out according to these recommendations, the majority of children will not encounter difficulties with their reading abilities.

This finding exemplifies the key characteristics of evidence-based social science. The first characteristic is the unity of freedom and nature. There are scientific laws governing reading instruction, and as long as these laws are followed, few problems may arise. However, instructors must also teach according to individual aptitudes, resulting in unique teaching methods and characteristics that benefit all students. The second is the unity of truth-seeking and goodness-pursuing. By comprehending the scientific principles underlying reading instruction, namely, uncovering the “truth” of effective teaching, we can more effectively apply the “truth” in our teaching practices to improve teaching outcomes. The pursuit of the “truth” of teaching methodology ultimately ensures educational excellence (“goodness”). The third characteristic is the unity of individual wisdom and collective wisdom. The field of reading science has been shaped by over 100,000 studies and embodies the cumulative knowledge contributed by generations of researchers worldwide. However, within the realm of reading instruction, teachers also bring their own unique insights and perspectives while adhering to established collective wisdom. This fusion allows for personal contributions that enrich instructional approaches. The fourth is the unity of autonomy and supervision. Evidence-based standards serve as benchmarks for effective reading instruction. Thus, if students’ reading performance falls significantly below average due to inadequate teaching practices, then it becomes necessary to investigate whether these practices align with scientific principles. In such cases where non-compliance is identified, appropriate measures should be taken to rectify or restrict ineffective instructional approaches accordingly. Conversely, when teachers adhere to evidence-based practices but encounter students who struggle with learning difficulties or challenges, they have every right to assert their professional judgment and safeguard their interests. The final characteristic is the unity of the general and the special. The laws governing reading teaching are universally applicable and can be adapted to specific instructional contexts (i.e., applying universal principles to special situations). However, as research progresses, addressing certain unique challenges may lead to more generalizable findings. For instance, future studies on phonemic awareness or phonics could yield numerous specific rules that contribute to a broader understanding. Consequently, what was once considered a specialized issue now becomes governed by a general law (i.e., acquiring a general principle for a previously identified special problem).

The inherent characteristics of evidence-based social science determine that it can become an important way to enhance the effectiveness of social science and is the beginning of “social engineering” in the entire field of social science practice. At present, some scholars have begun to put forward and pay great attention to “evidence-based social science” (Yang, 2018; Bai et al., 2018) or “evidence-based science” (Li et al., 2019) and believe that evidence-based practice has broad prospects for development and research in the fields of scientific system construction, methodological theory exploration, and high-quality evidence production. We propose that evidence-based social science, as a research orientation that meets the needs of the big data era, will profoundly influence and change the research methods and practice models of traditional social science and make important contributions to the well-being of mankind as a whole.

Key challenges in the present development of evidence-based social science

First, the existing research evidence in evidence-based social sciences is severely inadequate. Evidence-based social science recognizes evidence from diverse sources, yet assigns varying degrees of persuasiveness to different types of evidence (see Fig. 8). Empirical studies (research evidence) that meet the criteria for randomized controlled trials capable of conducting meta-analyses or systematic reviews while adhering to the declaration criteria of international Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are rare. Owing to insufficient original research, there is an inherent absence of high-quality research evidence, practice guides, manuals, standards, and evidence databases, leading to an inability to fulfill current demands.

Second, The comprehension of evidence-based social science is insufficient among researchers and the general public. Not only does the general public have limited understanding regarding the concept of evidence-based social science, but even researchers and practitioners in this field also possess shallow comprehension. The implementation of evidence-based social science cases in the real world remains uncommon. Some practitioners prefer relying on their own training, practical experience, or expert advice rather than investing time and effort into searching for relevant research evidence. Even when such evidence is obtained, a strong intention or genuine motivation to adhere to suggested protocols is lacking.

Furthermore, academia and industry associations dedicated to promoting evidence-based social science exhibit insufficient strength. At the present stage, it appears more crucial to prioritize fundamental tasks within the realm of social sciences by focusing on generating knowledge-of-knowing-the-world rather than producing knowledge-of-transforming-the-world. Emphasis placed on quantity surpasses evaluation concerning comprehensive quality when producing transformative evidential outcomes. In the application of evidence to transform the world, more attention is paid to the education and training of relevant evidence transformation and the establishment of relevant industry standards and norms, while not enough attention is paid to the fit of evidence application in the practice process.

Future development of evidence-based social science

First, evidence-based social science should break through traditional practice models. The traditional social science practice mode that evidence-based practice should abandon is a model that integrates the separation of practice subjects, the fragmentation of practical evidence, the experience of practical activities, and the uncertainty of practical results. The separation of the subject of practice refers to the practice in which a subject withdraws himself from the relationship between people, as an isolated activist who cannot rely on others and who, even if he sometimes pays attention to experts and their suggestions, thinks that he can practice smoothly on his own. The fragmentation of practical evidence refers to the evidence or data followed and used by practice and is not about all the subject knowledge of society and all practical experience, not even the complete knowledge of a particular discipline, but is just the view or proposition of a certain theoretical school. The empirical nature of practical activity means that it seems to be guided by social science, but once the practice procedure is started, its process is actually influenced by experience. Moreover, the individual’s unique experience is not only the final basis for the practitioner’s decision-making but also affects the process and scope of the entire practice. The uncertainty of the practice result means that the outcome of a practice may differ from the expected result of the practitioner. Furthermore, the opposite result may even appear.

Secondly, the practitioner should constantly optimize their own practice concept. Evidence-based social science requires practitioners to establish the following concepts. (1) Constantly revise, optimize, and shape the practitioner’s own ideas. The subject who carries out evidence-based practice is not a person with only natural attributes or one who needs only experience, but one who should realize that the new practice model must be matched by a new practitioner and who would shape oneself into the internal quality of an internalized evidence-based practice mode and into a subject with the corresponding practical way of thinking. (2) Overall concept. This notion includes considering the existence of people and society at the same time, as well as taking actors, researchers, and regulators as co-participants and witnesses of the implementation of the practice and emphasizing the role of evidence or data on social existence and morality in social life. (3) Global concept. This notion means that practitioners should have a global perspective, pay attention to global problems, and participate in global problem resolution. Each practitioner should also be open-minded; make full use of the evidence or data obtained by other practitioners; and compare, examine, and evaluate their own behavior and effectiveness in the successful practice of others.

Third, the researchers should furnish high-quality research evidence that is tailored to address practical requirements. Evidence-based social science is an extensive and intricate project that necessitates comprehensive industry research for genuine development. In terms of theoretical research, the academic community should engage in the critical examination of the connotation, structure, source, and evaluation criteria of “evidence”, as well as a collaborative investigation into the nature of diverse human and social problems, mechanisms of change, and factors influencing interventions. Regarding practical research, it is essential to conduct a multitude of original studies focused on practical issues within different cultures and regions while also conducting meta-analyses and systematic reviews on these local studies to establish localized treatment guidelines, standards, and manuals.

Fourth, government management departments and industry institutions need to collaboratively establish academic or executive organizations by formulating institutional documents that guide, coordinate, and allocate funds to ensure localization in evidence-based social science. Currently, available evidence resources primarily cater to Western populations but may not be applicable to individuals from other cultures. Developing an evidence-based social science database that aligns with one’s own culture is imperative. However, given the insufficient number of relevant original studies at present, translating existing evidence-based databases or even encouraging practitioners to explore ordinary websites or relevant original research databases for solutions can also serve as an important means for enhancing the effectiveness of evidence-based social science.

Finally, the aim is to train proficient practitioners in evidence-based social science, which itself serves as a reliable model for talent training. Evidence-based social science enables us to identify standardized solutions for specific barriers faced by people and society and facilitates the training of new practitioners through intervention manuals, standards, and guidelines. This approach is particularly suitable for beginners who prefer a step-by-step learning style akin to following a “cookbook.” In the teaching process of evidence-based social science, prioritizing the instruction of beginners with high-level standardized intervention programs through case studies is endorsed. This approach allows them to gain a deep understanding of the target population these programs are applicable to as well as comprehend the nature and mechanisms underlying related issues, along with theoretical foundations and principles guiding relevant intervention techniques. This talent training mode can rapidly produce a large number of qualified practitioners, effectively addressing challenges such as insufficient numbers or varying quality among professionals while benefiting the majority of those being served.

In conclusion, the goal of evidence-based social science is to pursue the most effective practice. The evidence or data retrieved by social science should be as comprehensive as possible. That evidence or data should be regular and purposeful, and scientific and traceable evidence quality classification and effect evaluation standards should be present. Practitioners, researchers, and regulators should cooperate fully to improve their practical ability and share responsibility. In the process of evidence-based practice, social science should remove randomness, implement standardization, reduce costs, and improve efficiency to ensure certainty of results.

Social science on the basis of big data analysis should actively join the research and practice of evidence-based social science; determine strict evidence evaluation and grading standards; formulate practical guidelines, standards, and manuals; establish an extensive database of research evidence; and disseminate that evidence free of charge to practitioners in need around the world. Practice methods (which were according to common sense, experience, single-man combat, lack of effective supervision, and frequent divergence from scientific theory) will be transformed into evidence-based practices that strictly follow research evidence and ensure “the most effective practice” with “the most effective research” as soon as possible.

By that time, human beings are expected to consciously get rid of the fetters of experience and customs, cease being superstitious in relation to any authority or dogma, and put the entire process of practical decision-making and implementation out in the open to be tested by the public, time, and practice. Government evidence-based decision-making, teacher evidence-based teaching, psychotherapist evidence-based treatment, social worker evidence-based services, entrepreneurship evidence-based management, police evidence-based criminal investigation, judge evidence-based trials, architect evidence-based construction … all indicate social scientists, practitioners, practice objects, managers working closely together, and people all over the world sharing knowledge of practice fairly and transparently. Everyone will be both consumers and creators of social science research. Behind each person’s single practice is substantial collective wisdom from countless others as a support. With the development of evidence-based practice, all of human society will gradually evolve into an “evidence-based society.” Every social person will become a “social engineer” who will solve his own practical problems. Evidence-based social science knowledge today will become the general public’s “practical wisdom” tomorrow and eventually become “life common sense” to guide public action.