Year: 2026
Type: preprint
Study design: Observational Study
Abstract: Evidence is not always judged by how true or useful it is, but often by who says it, where it comes from, and whose interests it serves. In evidence-informed decision-making, power relations, institutional priorities, and socio-economic context strongly shape what counts as credible and legitimate knowledge. Despite increasing attention to the politics of evidence, there is still limited understanding of how these dynamics influence evidence acceptance and use in practice. This study examines how trust, credibility, power dynamics, and epistemic hierarchies shape evidence use and knowledge legitimacy across diverse evidence ecosystems. It draws on a cross-sectional survey of 242 respondents from research, policy, civil society, and development sectors, using descriptive and comparative analyses to assess perceptions of evidence credibility, trust in evidence producers, evidence use, and epistemic justice across Global South and Global North contexts. Peer-reviewed research was identified as the most trusted source of evidence (55%), followed by local to indigenous knowledge (16%), NGO reports (13%), and government reports (12%). 75.6% of respondents agreed that Global North studies are often considered more authoritative than global south evidence, while 80.2% reported that institutional reputation influences evidence uptake. Trust was highest for academic researchers and international research collaborations, whereas ministries, media organizations, and faith-based institutions received lower trust ratings. Global South respondents reported stronger perceptions of Northern bias and donor influence than their Global North counterparts. Trust, power relations, and institutional legitimacy significantly shape evidence use. Promoting more equitable evidence ecosystems requires recognizing diverse knowledge systems, reducing epistemic hierarchies, and strengthening inclusive approaches that support epistemic justice and evidence-informed policymaking.
Source: Research Square
Institution: Effective Basic Services for Africa
Language: English
Subfield: General Social Sciences
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7204932717