“If you’re relying on data to make your argument, you’ve already lost it.” This was said to me in conversation with a headteacher recently. For context, it was at a progressive school and was, I believe, a comment aimed at Central Government and society more broadly - both of which seem determined to measure everything, focusing only on what is easily quantifiable rather than what is harder to capture, such as happiness, contentedness and a willingness to learn. That said, alongside happy, content students, that particular school also boasted excellent exam results.

The theme of data surfaced again a couple of days later at The Voice of Early Childhood Conference in Nottingham, where Jan Dubiel compared the approaches of Maria Montessori and Rudolf Steiner. Montessori’s method was rooted in the scientific observation of children, whereas Steiner viewed the child as a spiritual being “whose development was guided by the soul and biology.” After Jan’s workshop - during which he admitted to leaning more towards the Montessori end of the spectrum, while recognising that many of us sit somewhere between the two extremes - I handed him a copy of our Learniture publication, 'Thinking about learning'. In it, we’ve collated much of the empirical data, gathered from robust research programmes, that has guided and informed our Learniture product collection.

That exchange reminded me of a conversation I once had with a continental furniture manufacturer who referenced the admittedly clichéd view that British people often prefer pragmatic data, while continental Europeans tend to favour theory, philosophy or broader conceptual ideas. It’s a generalisation, of course, but one that occasionally rings true when discussing learning environments, pedagogy and the rationale behind design decisions.

Aware that I may be at risk of overusing the phrase “the research tells us,” I would still defend it, believing that we use data simply to underline aspects of our proposals. When, for example, we suggest a seat that enables students to fidget and are met with the response that it’s distracting or shows they’re not paying attention, we feel it’s useful - indeed part of our role - to point to the research conducted by Professor Chuck Hilman or Dr Dieter Breithecker. But I’d like to think this doesn’t mean our designs lack creativity, nuance or the ability to respond to aspects for which there isn’t a single definitive answer. Do we achieve that balance - I’ll let you be the judge of that.

When you click an external link on our website, you’ll be taken to a third‑party site. We’re not responsible for the content, security, or privacy practices of external websites, and any views expressed there do not necessarily reflect those of Metric.