Bridging Empirical Evidence and Diverse Epistemologies in Public Policy: Evidence-Based Policy and the Issue of Subjugated Knowledges

This article explores the relationship between Evidence-Based Policy (EBP) and subjugated knowledges, addressing the need to integrate critical perspectives on science and include diverse knowledge in governmental decision-making. EBP, which promotes decisions informed by empirical evidence, faces criticism for its technocratic tendency and limited inclusion of the significant plurality of knowledge in territories. This paper suggests that the inclusion of subjugated knowledges (Foucault), defined as knowledge that is marginalized or considered inferior, can improve both the efficiency and the justice component of public policies. It proposes an approach that combines the empirical strengths of EBP, such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials, as well as a professionalized public service with research capacities, complemented by an emphasis on including marginalized populations through participatory processes and qualitative research capable of recognizing the limitations and potential conflicts between different types of knowledge. By identifying and facilitating subjugated testimonial (visible and articulated) and hermeneutic (experiential, unidentifiable) knowledges, this study seeks to enrich the evidence base and pluralize interpretations of social reality, widening the repertoire of alternatives for communities. This approach, especially relevant for regions with low institutionalization of knowledge, such as the global South, aims to strengthen the capacity of governments to create more effective and inclusive policies, promoting processes of social reparations and epistemic justice.