How Evidential Pluralism Mitigates Epistemic Injustice in Evidence-Based Evaluation

By prioritising certain kinds of evidence and devaluing or excluding other kinds of evidence, orthodox evidence-based evaluation practice perpetuates epistemic injustice, we argue. In contrast, by advocating a more inclusive approach to evidence, Evidential Pluralism can avoid these epistemic injustices. This motivates the adoption of Evidential Pluralism as a new methodology for evaluation. These arguments are supported by case studies concerning Covid-19 public face-mask mandates and global value chains for development. Consideration of epistemic injustice introduces a moral dimension to the debate concerning the epistemic virtues and limitations of the orthodox approach and Evidential Pluralism.