Evidence-Based, Research-Based, Research-Informed, or Data-Driven? A Campus Pro’s Guide to Prevention Lingo
What is the correct lingo? Evidence-Based, Research-Based, Research-Informed, or Data-Driven?
Under the newly passed Stop Campus Hazing Act, colleges and universities in the United States are required to develop a policy statement for their Annual Security Reports outlining the institution’s hazing prevention and awareness programming. More specifically, colleges and universities have to describe the campus-wide (i.e., having a wide-reaching scope rather than targeting a few specific student groups), research-informed prevention programs that reach across campus stakeholder groups (i.e., faculty, staff, and students). But what does “researched-informed” mean? How does this differ from prevention programs that are “data-driven,” “research-based,” or “evidence-based”? And, which of these standards provide the best hazing education to campus community members?
Data-Driven Prevention
Data-driven prevention strategies are focused on primary prevention (i.e., intervening BEFORE the undesired behaviors happen rather than reacting to an incident; refer to Figure 1) strategies that resonate within their community contexts (Evidence-based Prevention and Intervention Support, n.d.). Data-driven prevention strategies rely on regularly collected assessment data to provide a reliable portrait of their population, analyze changes in behavior, and plan future programming (Sustainability Directory, 2025). An example of data-driven prevention might include doing an environmental scan (consider using this information-gathering tool from StopHazing’s Commitment to Hazing Prevention: Action Guide) or a student survey, and using this data to develop targeted interventions for campus stakeholders. It is valuable to have regular assessment and evaluation cycles to inform decision-making and planning processes in prevention work.
However, data-driven prevention efforts do not require the level of rigor in data collection and analysis that research-based or evidence-based prevention strategies do.
Figure 1
Research-Informed Prevention
In contrast, research-informed prevention strategies are distinct in that they draw from peer-reviewed scholarship across disciplines and are applied to address the needs of the identified population (Peavey & Vander Wyst, 2017). While research-informed strategies take peer-reviewed scholarship into consideration, it is also acceptable for practical knowledge and experience to be used to develop the prevention strategy or educational plan. In a higher education context, the knowledge and experience of campus professionals– the conversations had with students, facilitation experiences, and program-planning– should be considered and incorporated. Research-informed prevention strategies are evaluated and iterated on to address the needs of different audiences (Peavey & Vander Wyst, 2017).
Examples of research-informed prevention strategies for hazing include the Making Space for Leaders to Lead Change, Practicing Values-Based Leadership & Decision Making, and 10 Signs of Healthy & Unhealthy Groups workshops. Here, the campus practitioners who developed these workshops drew from scholarship related to hazing prevention, leadership development, and belonging to create targeted interventions for their campuses. That is they drew upon their campus-specific protective factors to inform the framing of the workshop (see Figure 2). These workshops were evaluated within the context of the Hazing Prevention Consortium (HPC), and they can be adapted to fit the needs of different campus environments.
Figure 2
Research-Based vs. Evidence-Based Prevention
While “research-based” and “evidence-based” prevention are often used interchangeably, they are distinguished by demonstrated efficacy. Both research-based and evidence-based prevention are developed from existing theory and analyses that have undergone peer-review. A research-based prevention strategy will adapt this knowledge into an intervention, but results from the study may or may not demonstrate an impact on the problem (Downend, 2024; Indeed Editorial Team, 2025).
In contrast, to qualify as an evidence-based prevention strategy, it must demonstrate efficacy in mitigating the established health problem, and these results must be replicable, even when placed in new contexts (Evidence-Based Behavioral Practice, 2018; Health Policy Institute of Ohio, 2013).
In the case of hazing prevention, several studies have examined the efficacy of particular research-based prevention strategies. Cornell University researchers highlighted the importance of social norms campaigns and video-based interventions like Intervene. StopHazing researchers published about the effectiveness of We Don’t Haze, a 16-minute documentary, in shifting attitudes and perceptions of hazing, and this team wrote about the perceived impact of participating in the Hazing Prevention Consortium, a three-year, research-to-practice initiative.
However, these results have not yet been replicated such that these strategies might be considered “evidence-based,” but this is common in emerging fields like the scholarship of hazing and its prevention. Aspiring towards evidence-based prevention and, in turn, evidence-based decision-making is aligned with StopHazing’s mission.
Evidence-based decision-making refers to the practice of drawing from peer-reviewed research findings alongside the contextual factors of a community, and expertise from a range of stakeholders (e.g., researchers, practitioners, administrators, and policymakers) to address an identified public health issue (Evidence-Based Behavioral Practice, 2018; Health Policy Institute of Ohio, 2013). Decision-making and planning are, in many ways, shared processes predicated on collecting all of the best evidence (Brownson et al., 2009), and this level of rigor and expertise are what college and universities should aim toward when planning their hazing prevention strategies.
Gaining clarity about these different labels for prevention strategies is important for understanding the requirements under the new federal legislation. Prevention programming and education should consider findings from peer-reviewed articles, use these lessons to adapt strategies that will fit the needs and culture of the institution, and evaluate the efficacy of an intervention in their campus contexts. While the SCHA only requires research-informed programming, utilizing research-based strategies derived from peer-reviewed research with demonstrated efficacy can elevate and strengthen hazing prevention education. StopHazing offers multiple research-informed and research-based prevention strategies including workshops, video-based interventions, communications campaigns and an online educational course.
In Summary – 3 Takeaways:
- There are differences between “data-driven,” “research-informed,” “research-based,” and “evidence-based” prevention, and it is important to know what kinds of strategies your campus is using.
- There are a growing number of research-informed strategies, few research-based hazing prevention interventions, and due to the emerging nature of the field, there are no evidence-based strategies to date (March 2025).
- As you think about implementing new educational strategies on your campus, check to see how the programs or resources utilize campus-based assessment data and peer-reviewed research. If a resource is marketed as evidence-based or research-based, do your homework and verify!
To learn more about StopHazing’s research in primary hazing prevention, click here.
Written by: StopHazing Researchers and Staff
Date: March 31, 2025
References
Allan, E. J., Kerschner, D., & Franklin, D. (2025). Exploring the Perceived Impact of a Multi-Year Campus Hazing Prevention Initiative at Eight Universities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241308291
Allan, E. J., Payne, J. & Kerschner, D. (2018). Transforming the culture of hazing: A research-based hazing prevention framework. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(4) 412-425. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2018.1474759
Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Maylahn, C. M. (2009). Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual review of public health, 30, 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134
Downend, C. (2024, April 24). Evidence-based? Research-based? What does it all mean? Lesley University Center for Reading Recovery and Literacy Collaborative. https://crrlc.lesley.edu/evidence-based-what-does-it-mean/
Evidence-Based Behavioral Practice. (n.d.). Defining evidence-based behavioral practice. https://ebbp.org/ebbp/definition
Evidence-based Prevention and Intervention Support. (n.d.). Data-driven prevention planning. The Pennsylvania State University. https://epis.psu.edu/planning
Health Policy Institute of Ohio. (2013, December). Guide to evidence-based prevention. National Network of Public Health Institutes. https://nnphi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/GuideToEvidence-BasedPrevention.pdf
Kerschner, D. J., & Allan, E. J. (2024). We don’t haze: Testing the effectiveness of a video-based hazing prevention training for college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241254140
Indeed Editorial Team. (2025, January 28). Evidence-based vs. research-based programs: Definitions and differences. Indeed. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/evidence-based-vs-research-based
Marchell, T. C., Santracrose, L. B., Laurita, A. C., & Allan, E. J. (2022). A public health approach to preventing hazing on a university campus. Journal of American College Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.2024210
Santacrose, L. B., Laurita, A. C, & Marchell, T. C. (2020). Intervene: Modeling pro-social bystander behavior in college students through online video. Health Communication, 35(4), 397-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1564956
Sustainability Directory. (2025, January 26). Data-driven prevention. https://sustainability-directory.com/term/data-driven-prevention/
Peavey, E, & Vander Wyst, K.B. (2017). Evidence-based design and research-informed design: What’s the difference? Conceptual definitions and comparative analysis. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 10(5):143-156. doi:10.1177/1937586717697683