Nope. Our curriculum is evidence-informed, but not evidence-based.
- We tweak the curriculum several times a year based on changes in culture, research, and feedback from facilitators.
- We overhaul the curriculum every year (including frequent substantive changes to the structure, or replacing activities)
- Our curriculum is used in over 100 countries in more capacities than we can keep track of (far beyond just higher education)
Just one of the above would be enough to break the deal on our curriculum being evidence-based. All three are a deal-breaking trifecta.
While we appreciate evidence-based curricula, and what doors that opens for some people, it’s not something that aligns with our goals for this project.
We don’t want to limit who can use our materials, or tie our own hands against improving the curriculum to react to new trends/data/needs.
To be evidence-based, (1) we’d either have to proscribe uses beyond the specific application we’re studying, or potentially mislead/misrepresent people with data that aren’t generalizable; and (2) we’d have to allow our curriculum to stagnate for several years (or nearly a decade) without changes for the data to be viable.
Both of which are deal-breakers for us.
Note: As of now, any published research or evidence you find discussing “safe zone” trainings is not about our curriculum specifically. There are several researchers who have reached out to tell us they’re using our materials in some capacity for their study, but as far as we know none of these have been published yet. We’ll update this if that changes.