The Politics of Evidence Use: Trust and Knowledge Hierarchies
This study reveals that evidence acceptance and use are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics, institutional reputation, and epistemic hierarchies rather than objective truth, with a survey of 242 stakeholders highlighting a pervasive bias toward Global North sources and underscoring the urgent need for more equitable, inclusive evidence ecosystems that recognize diverse knowledge systems.
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
In the world of public policy and international development, there is a long-held belief that the best way to solve problems is to follow the evidence. This idea suggests that if leaders simply look at the facts—data from studies, reports, and experiments—they will make the right choices for health, education, and economic growth. For decades, the standard approach has been to treat certain types of information as superior to others. Peer-reviewed scientific studies, especially those conducted in wealthy nations, are often placed at the top of a ladder of trust, while local stories, community experiences, and data from developing regions are pushed to the bottom. This creates a system where the source of a fact matters more than the fact itself. But a new study asks a difficult question: does this hierarchy actually help us make better decisions, or does it simply reinforce old patterns of power? The researchers wanted to understand how trust works in the real world, not just in theory. They explored whether people in charge actually use the best available information, or if they ignore valuable local knowledge simply because it comes from the wrong place or the wrong person.
To find the answer, a team of researchers from Effective Basic Services in Africa, led by Ernest Alang Wung, conducted a large survey of 242 people working in research, government, non-profits, and development. These participants came from many different countries and backgrounds, with the vast majority, about 88 percent, working in the Global South—the term used for lower and middle-income nations. The team asked these professionals to rate how much they trusted different sources of information, from academic journals to local community reports. They also asked whether they believed that the reputation of an institution or the politics of a situation influenced which facts were accepted. The goal was to see if the ideal of using evidence to guide policy matches the messy reality of how decisions are actually made.
The results revealed a clear and persistent divide. When asked to name the most trusted source of evidence, 55 percent of the respondents pointed to peer-reviewed research. This is the formal scientific literature that is checked by other experts before publication. In contrast, only 16 percent trusted local or indigenous knowledge, which includes the wisdom passed down through generations within a community. Another 13 percent trusted reports from non-governmental organizations, and 12 percent trusted government reports. This gap suggests that even among people who work daily with local problems, the gold standard remains the formal scientific study. However, the study also found that this trust is not based solely on the quality of the data. A striking 75.6 percent of respondents agreed that studies from the Global North are often considered more authoritative than evidence from the Global South, regardless of the actual content. Furthermore, 80.2 percent said that the reputation of the institution producing the report is a major factor in whether that evidence gets used.
The survey painted a picture of a system where trust is unevenly distributed. International research collaborations and academic researchers received the highest trust ratings, while government ministries, media organizations, and faith-based groups received much lower ratings. This pattern holds true even when the local data is highly relevant to the specific problem at hand. The researchers found that nearly half of the respondents admitted they had ignored evidence in the past simply because they did not trust the source. This is a crucial finding because it shows that evidence is not treated as a neutral tool. Instead, it is filtered through a lens of credibility that is shaped by who is speaking and where they are speaking from. The study suggests that when a policymaker sees a report from a prestigious international organization, they are more likely to accept it than a report from a local community group, even if the local report offers a more accurate picture of the situation on the ground.
The political nature of this process was also made clear. A strong majority, 81.4 percent, agreed that political considerations sometimes outweigh factual data when policies are made. This confirms that the decision-making process is not a simple matter of looking at the numbers and choosing the best option. Instead, it is a complex negotiation where power, relationships, and institutional interests play a huge role. The researchers noted that donor agencies and funding priorities heavily influence which types of data are collected and used. If a donor wants to see a certain kind of result, the evidence produced often aligns with that desire, rather than reflecting the full reality of the situation. This creates a cycle where local knowledge is undervalued, not because it is bad, but because it does not fit the established rules of what counts as "real" science.
Despite these challenges, the study found a strong desire for change. An overwhelming 83.9 percent of respondents agreed that combining indigenous knowledge with scientific research leads to better public policy outcomes. Similarly, 83.5 percent believed that research done together with communities, rather than just on them, makes data more reliable. This suggests that the people working in the field recognize the limitations of the current system. They see that relying only on formal, Western-style research misses important context. However, there is a gap between what people believe should happen and what actually happens. Only about half of the respondents felt their organizations had the capacity to assess and use different types of data effectively. Language barriers also remain a significant hurdle, with 75.2 percent saying that language differences limit the use of certain evidence sources. This means that valuable information written in local languages often goes unread by international decision-makers who only speak English.
The study also looked at whether these dynamics differ between the Global North and the Global South. While the overall patterns were similar, the experience of the bias was stronger for those in the Global South. Respondents from these regions reported feeling the pressure of Northern bias and donor influence more acutely. They were more likely to say that local data is ignored by external stakeholders. In contrast, those from the Global North showed slightly higher trust in formal academic sources and were less likely to report that they had ignored evidence due to distrust. Yet, both groups agreed that the current system is flawed and that a more inclusive approach is needed. The researchers concluded that for evidence to truly inform policy, the system must change. It needs to move away from a rigid hierarchy that privileges one type of knowledge over another and toward a more equitable ecosystem where trust is built on transparency, relevance, and partnership.
Ultimately, this research highlights that the problem is not a lack of data, but a lack of trust in the right places. The authors suggest that fixing this requires more than just better statistics or more studies. It requires a shift in how we value knowledge. If we want policies that work for the people they are meant to help, we must learn to trust the people who live those realities. This means giving weight to the stories of communities, the insights of local practitioners, and the wisdom of indigenous systems, treating them not as secondary to science, but as essential parts of the whole picture. The study does not claim to have solved the problem, but it provides a clear map of where the obstacles lie. It shows that until we address the deep-seated inequalities in how knowledge is valued, the promise of evidence-based decision-making will remain out of reach for many.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.