The Politics and Practice of Truth: Critical and Interpretive Perspectives on the Relationship Between Evidence and Policy in Post-Truth Times

Debates over the role of evidence in policy-making are shaped by two opposing developments. On the one hand, there is a persistent technocratic push to rely more and more on data and scientific evidence. On the other hand, it is said we live in ‘post-truth’ times, where the authority of scientific evidence and knowledge-producing institutions erodes. Seeking to address this tension, the aim of the section is to develop new theoretical and empirical perspectives that go beyond standard evidence-based policy making (EBPM) narratives as a framework for understanding evidence use by governments. Critical and interpretive perspectives are particularly well-suited to develop these new perspectives, as they examine the power-knowledge nexus that underpins contemporary government practice. EBPM assumes, in its most basic form, that evidence should play a central role in policy decision-making (Head, 2015). It has been studied in multiple areas of political science scholarship, including: policy evaluation, policy learning, epistemic communities, agenda setting, policy ideas and policy and paradigm diffusion. At the same time, the popular idea that policy should or even can be “based” on evidence has been challenged both empirically and normatively. Empirically, studies consistently show that if we use a strict definition of ‘evidence’, policies are predominantly not based on evidence (Smith 2013), and that heavy reliance on specific types of evidence can escalate policy conflict to levels beyond repair (Dorren & Wolf, 2023). Normatively, decision-making in democratic societies has to account for a broader range of considerations (Andersen & Smith, 2021), problematizing EBPM as an idea and an ideal. Studies have long been pointing out how evidence use is often not just a search for truths, but involves actors selecting evidence that serves vested interests and reinforces existing power dynamics (Stevens, 2007). Tensions around EBPM as a concept have intensified further with the rise of ‘epistemic populism’ (Nawrocki, 2024) and its focus on ‘common sense’, counter-knowledge and conspiracy theories, which challenge existing knowledge hierarchies based on a rejection of elites and their institutions (Ylla-Antilla, 2018; Collins & Evans, 2019) but at the same time seem to echo EBPM ideals (Graham, 2002). Furthermore, the increasing digitalisation of public management and the rise of new AI evidence tools reconfigure the way we relate to evidence. Capable of real-time data analysis and evidence synthesis, AI promises to reshape the epistemic infrastructures of governments. It also significantly increases the influence of non-human actors on traditionally human-centred policy processes. Paradoxically, what EBPM typically sees as evidence is both more available and less influential than ever before. It seems, then, that standard narratives around EBPM have lost their explanatory power to capture the relationship between knowledge and politics because many of the tenets they are built on no longer capture what happens in politics and policy practice. This section will create a space for new theoretical debates over evidence use in times of epistemic disorientation and new concepts and theoretical language that can be mobilised to explore what comes after EBPM.