Post-truth and pathways for evaluators

Abstract

Post-truth relates to the combination of tactics of influence and opinion manipulation orchestrated by powerful economic and political interests, principally targeting initiatives or ideas with a transformative potential. Post-truth strategies express themselves in multiple tactics, which happen synchronously at varied levels and through different channels. Scientifically valid information is forced to compete with narratives which are designed to create doubt or skepticism. Disinformation weakens efforts to implement policies intended to support transformative goals. The distortion, discrediting, or ignoring of scientific evidence has become a threat to our societies. This article starts by defining the post-truth phenomenon, first discussing the roots, tactics, and contextual conditions supporting its expansion. Then it explores what stance evaluators can adopt to work in this new era where people are polarized and disinformation is widespread. This article aims to raise awareness of this disruptive phenomenon and brings evaluators together to consider promising practices.

Introduction

Post-truth is not one phenomenon; the concept relates to the combination of tactics of influence and opinion manipulation orchestrated by powerful economic and political interests, which primarily target initiatives or ideas with a transformative potential.

What is called “post-truth” is an expanded and new form of propaganda (Poulakidakos et al., 2018). Disinformation and opinion manipulation are old phenomena, and propaganda has existed for a long time (Arendt, 2012 [1967]; Bernays, 1972 [1928]; Chomsky, 2002). Throughout history, powerful actors have applied these methods to further their interests. However, social media has pushed organized disinformation to a level never-before witnessed. Consequently, new forms of opinion manipulation are emerging.

Post-truth strategies express themselves in multiple influence and manipulation tactics; they happen at varied levels and through different channels. They work because they are implemented synchronously. Therefore, these tactics shouldn’t be analyzed in isolation; the analysis would not adequately reflect the way they are implemented, nor their potential.

Academics, activists, and some policymakers are increasingly calling for transformative actions to address the existential threats to living species. In response, some industrial groups and powerful elites with economic/financial interests who are threatened by these transformative agendas are orchestrating post-truth narratives intending to impede these changes. Scientifically valid information is forced to compete with narratives designed to create doubt or skepticism. Disinformation weakens efforts to implement policies intended to support transformative goals. The distortion, discrediting, or ignoring of scientific evidence has become a threat to our societal well-being. These narratives are conveyed by some groups sharing similar interests on social media, but they are also amplified by public figures and translated into public policies. Contemporary examples of this post-truth social and political phenomenon include efforts to weaken or undermine COVID-19 prevention measures, as well as efforts to address the environmental polycrisis, which have a high potential to disrupt current patterns of economic activity and related existing power structures.

This dynamic of scientific evidence versus post-truth information calls evaluators’ role into question. As evaluators, how should we deal with post-truth strategies and tactics? How should we practice in this new era of amplified propaganda and division?

This article starts by defining the post-truth phenomenon, first discussing the roots of this new form of propaganda, its tactics, and the contextual conditions supporting its expansion. Then, it explores what stance evaluators can adopt to work in this new era where people are polarized and disinformation is widespread. This article aims to raise awareness of this disruptive phenomenon and brings evaluators together to consider promising practices.

This work originates from observing various events and dynamics, mainly about climate action and COVID-19 prevention measures that didn’t make sense from the perspective of a public health and planetary health researcher. While working on this article, I developed a new understanding that helped me interpret the current political situation. Since this article was first submitted and accepted for publication, different but complementary perspectives on undertaking evaluation in a post-truth context were published (see Marra et al., 2024). This diversity of writings can only positively nurture debate and help evaluators navigate post-truth contexts with agility.

Post-truth: Examples, roots, tactics, and fertile ground

Two real-life examples serve to illustrate post-truth strategies in practice: One is centered around COVID-19 prevention and the other is around climate change mitigation. In the following, the roots of this post-truth phenomenon, some of the tactics used, and the conditions for this propaganda to successfully resonate at a larger scale are presented.

Post-truth strategies and tactics: Two contemporary examples

When the COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 there was a lack of reliable scientific evidence on the virus, particularly the way it was transmitted and its short-term and long-term health impacts. In the face of the emergency, large-scale research efforts were rapidly put in place, and soon, evidence surfaced. The virus was overwhelmingly transferred through the air, not via contaminated surfaces; given its mutation rate, vaccines alone would not control the pandemic, and the virus was causing significant health issues after the acute phase of the disease (Andrews et al., 2022; Dyani, 2020; Farooqi et al., 2021; NICE-Guidelines, 2020).

Early in the pandemic, scientific articles demonstrated that COVID-19 is airborne, hence, properly ventilated indoor spaces, as well as wearing high-quality masks, were effective protection measures. However, many governmental bodies refused to acknowledge this well-documented fact and instead kept sharing information in direct contradiction with existing scientific knowledge (Contandriopoulos, 2021; Greenhalgh et al., 2021). The same situation happened with long-term impacts of COVID-19. Studies show that between 10 percent and 40 percent of people infected with COVID-19 experience long-Covid symptoms, with impacts on numerous organs (heart, lungs, immune system, pancreas, gastrointestinal track, neurological system, kidneys, spleen and liver, blood vessels, reproductive system) 4 weeks or more after the infection (Davis et al., 2023; Lam et al., 2023; Muzyka et al., 2023; Petersen et al., 2022; Qasmieh et al., 2023). People of all ages are at risk of experiencing long-term impacts, including newborns and young children, and the infection significantly increases long-term diseases among children (Davis et al., 2023). But these impacts are mostly absent from public health communications.

In 2023, the British Columbia Public Health Officer was still encouraging people to wash their hands (Henry, 2023).

She lifted mask mandates, even in crowded areas, and in locations with vulnerable people, such as in hospitals; she kept mentioning that the disease is mild especially among children; and she defended the idea of herd immunity, which is argued to come from high levels of vaccination and immunity developed from having the disease. Children were explicitly encouraged to resume their activities but were the last age group eligible for vaccination, putting them at greater risk of infection. Almost no information was provided by public health authorities about the long-term health impacts of COVID-19 infection. Instead, the focus was squarely on the relatively low risks of the acute phase. In a 2023 interview, the Chief Medical Officer for Vancouver Island (British Columbia, Canada) urged people to go back to normal, stating:

Masks, reducing social contacts, limiting gathering, all of those had actual significant harmful side effects to society. I would say one of the biggest misconceptions is that if you care about health, you would continue to do Covid-related restrictions. No, if you care about health, it is very important to know that things have changed and it is now time to prioritize other preventive care, education, social interactions, looking after people who are experiencing inequities and of course our overdose crisis. (Gustafson, 2023)

What is disturbing is that a similar narrative was used in The Great Barrington Declaration, which called for an end to prevention efforts and passed over scientific knowledge on health risks attributable to COVID-19 (Kulldorff et al., 2020). Led by three university-based researchers, this initiative was funded by right-wing interests, among which was the American Institute for Economic Research (Lewandowsky, 2021b). In 2020, supposedly 1 million people signed the declaration, advocating for herd immunity and a return to normal. The World Health Organization and many scientists reacted by pointing out that the Declaration was based on false, dangerous, or misleading premises (Aschwanden, 2021; Zenone et al., 2022). Nevertheless, its continued influence on public health recommendations in British Columbia is troubling. With their discourse and actions, public health officers, health ministers, and think tanks shaped people’s behaviors and beliefs, urging a return to normal (Gorski, 2020), while contradicting or ignoring scientific knowledge on the virus and disease. Furthermore, their position of power reinforced the symbolic credibility of their statements, making them effective amplifiers of disinformation.

Disinformation and opinion manipulation are not unique to COVID-19. We see many examples of organized groups creating and amplifying alternatives to existing scientific messages, casting doubt in people’s minds. Topics related to climate change and climate action are another playing field for propaganda and opinion manipulation: “Climate change is a natural phenomenon”; “Rising carbon dioxide levels will stimulate plant growth.” These messages are shared and repeated through social media, but also by influential politicians (see, for example, Marjorie Taylor Greene in the United States). In Spring 2023, we observed social movements rallying against the concept of 15-minute cities, which is a concept designating the creation of neighborhoods with proximity to services accessible without cars. This concept has been distorted and presented as a project to create ghettos that aim to impede population movement beyond a 15-minute circle around people’s homes, as well as to raise fears of repeating so-called oppressive COVID-19 measures. We observed simultaneous protests against this concept in the United Kingdom and in Canada, which shows the broad influence of the same disinformation messages. These messages are sometimes initiated by think tanks or researchers often funded from the shadows by industries, and sometimes are created by unknown sources yet transmitted simultaneously all across the world through social media, nurturing some groups’ discontent and anger (Gorski, 2020; House, 2020). Some privately owned media contribute to legitimizing polarizing views (House, 2020: 29).

With regard to climate change and COVID-19, one strategy oppositional actors use is denying that the problem exists. The term “climate change” itself has become taboo in some locations. Elected officials in some Canadian provinces have been stating, in the past couple of years, that they can no longer use it without experiencing a political backlash. Climate events such as destructive forest fires, drought, heatwaves, and intense smoke episodes are happening more often. But the link between these events and climate change is scarcely mentioned in the media, as if they were unrelated (Davidson et al., 2019), which further contributes to shaping public opinion that these events are unrelated. Therefore, messaging that denies the problem’s existence persists.

The examples outlined above are troubling for several additional reasons. First, the same political actors are involved. Right-wing conservative think tanks are actively producing new, misleading arguments and strategies that are then relayed all over the world on polarizing topics, such as COVID-19 management and climate change strategies. Second, those messages are diffused in a multilayered pattern with a global reach. From fringe online groups to public health officials, and from influencers to troll farms, the same ideas are framed in different ways by actors who, knowingly or not, work in concert. Third, the messages themselves are aimed at creating doubt, often using the language of science or scientific channels and processes. They sow doubt and alternative narratives in people’s heads, confusing and hampering rational debate. Ultimately, they share the goal of preventing or weakening coherent political and social action that could disrupt their funders’ interests. This is the post-truth era we are in.

The roots of post-truth strategies and tactics

The origins of post-truth phenomena and strategies are well documented (Kenner et al., 2015; McIntyre, 2018; Oreskes and Conway, 2011). In 1953, during a meeting of the tobacco industry, a strategy was identified to fight back against public health recommendations about tobacco: “to fight the science sponsoring other research” (McIntyre, 2018: 22). The objective was to create doubt around the existence of an emerging scientific consensus about the link between smoking and cancer, with the purpose of maintaining a lucrative economic activity. The strategy used by the tobacco industry was adopted and accelerated by the fossil fuel industry when scientists started to raise concerns about climate warming (McIntyre, 2018). Again, the objective was to sow controversy and undermine the existing scientific consensus, with the desired consequence that the public and policymakers be confused, ultimately impeding public action that would threaten the existing economic activity and system (Lamb et al., 2020; McIntyre, 2018). As a starting response, the Heartland Institute was created, initially funded by Exxon and the Koch family (Gorski and Yamey, 2021; McIntyre, 2018).

Interestingly, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), “a libertarian free-market think-tank that has a history of bogus argumentation about climate change (e.g. by denying the scientific consensus)” (Lewandowsky, 2021b: 67), sponsored The Great Barrington Declaration. The Declaration was advocating that all measures protecting against COVID-19 infection be dropped, except for vaccination, and defending the idea that herd immunity will be reached. The current President of the AIER is the former Vice President Research and Policy of the Charles Koch Institute and former Vice President for Research of the Charles Koch Foundation. The AIER is partially funded by the Charles Koch Foundation and has linkages to fossil fuel companies, as well as the tobacco industry (Gorski and Yamey, 2021). The Koch family made a fortune when Fred C. Koch invented a new cracking technique “by which petroleum is converted into lighter oils and gasoline” (Duignan, 2024).

Similar funders apply these mechanisms to topics with high potential for disrupting the existing balance of societal and economic power. Currently, we observe a sophistication and complexification of strategies “used to downplay and discount the need for action (McKie, 2019; Norgaard, 2011)” (Lamb et al., 2020: 1). The strategies of disinformation and public opinion manipulation have diversified and expanded in volume and now affect different areas (COVID-19, climate action, and other topics) (Gorski, 2020).

Tactics

Tactics of influence and opinion manipulation are multiple, and they are generally directed toward impeding the implementation of transformative action. No one tactic can explain the success of post-truth strategies; they work effectively because they are implemented simultaneously and reinforce each other. The following tactics can be identified.

Blurring the divide between “facts, opinions and interpretations” (Brahms, 2020: 2, mentioning Arendt)

“The outcome of such blurring is a confused public that cannot differentiate between fact, fabrication, and opinion” (Brahms, 2020: 2). The more difficult it is to prove messages are wrong, the more effective the post-truth strategy, as it keeps scientists busy debating instead of constituting a united voice, reinforcing the impression that no consensus exists. It is important to understand that post-truth messages typically do not directly oppose what science indicates, but instead offer a different interpretation of a phenomenon. Post-truth is not about denying scientific facts, it is about offering a misinterpretation of scientific facts while focusing on face-valid credibility, suggesting there is doubt about the truth.

The nature of scientific practice creates further vulnerability when confronted with post-truth strategies: Scientific evidence is complex and difficult to present (McIntyre, 2019); doubt and skepticism are core principles to scientific progress and to the “scientific attitude” (McIntyre, 2019); scientific evidence and consensus is evolving in time, either incrementally and or by paradigmatic shifts (Kuhn, 1962). These characteristics of scientific practice potentially reinforce the positions of groups with pre-existing distrust of scientists and science.

Undermining science credibility

A mainstream tactic consists of neutralizing or countering research through funding private institutes populated with real researchers, producing alternative or tweaked messages that differ from mainstream scientific consensus, with the purpose of giving the impression that scientists don’t agree and that there is no scientific consensus (Lewandowsky, 2021a).

Recently, we have seen the discrediting of one of the most respected scientific sources on health intervention effectiveness, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, with the publication of an article with weak and disputable methodology, stating that masks are ineffective against COVID-19 (Jefferson et al., 2023).

Another strategy used is offering funding from resource extraction and transportation industrial-related groups to promising sustainability researchers and academic units involved in the ecological transition. Some universities, even ones with a world-class reputation, are accepting donations from foundations with clear links to the fossil fuel industry. Those donations fund institutes or higher education programs. Scientific disinformation has been increasingly associated with philanthropy (Lewandowsky, 2021a). The influence of industrial groups is done from the shadows and legitimized by the hosting institution.

Directly funding activists and researchers achieve three different goals. First, offering “unrelated” financial support and advantages (as the pharmaceutical industry has been doing with doctors around drug prescription) inevitably orients the beneficiary’s opinion with regard to the funder, contributing to reduced opposition or even to increased sales and positive indirect representation. Second, it can be used to divert potential disrupters from leading a more transformational agenda, by keeping them busy on more marginal action. “Pushing non transformative solutions” contributes both to social legitimacy of contested industrial groups while also diverting efforts that could have been oriented toward more disruptive change (Lamb et al., 2020: 1). Third, it divides the community of people asking for urgent and bold action, thus reducing their capacity to rally and show a unified stance.

Polarizing opinion

Polarizing society is an effective way to impede change, reduce governmental capacity for action, and further discredit international agencies and expert voices (Marquardt et al., 2022; Marquardt and Lederer, 2022). In recent years, we have observed different threads of disinformation taking place on topics with a high potential for society polarization. For example, there are threads of disinformation about vaccination and inclusive measures for transgender people. Similarly, the recent populist resurgence movement creates an opportunity for powerful economic interests to support polarizing voices.

Consolidation of industrial groups’ legitimacy

A mainstream strategy is to create strategic alliances with specific groups. An example is gas and pipeline companies signing agreements with some Indigenous leaders and communities in Canada to establish new partnerships (CAPP, 2021). These agreements maintain the prominence of these companies on the stock market, notwithstanding the movement to divest from fossil fuel industries, as they now meet ESG (environmental, social, and governance) criteria. These agreements also polarize Indigenous people and communities by accentuating divergent positions between those participating in the agreement and, on the other side, land defenders and Hereditary Chiefs, weakening the movement of land defenders. Furthermore, these alliances increase the symbolic power of industrial groups, in the context of Indigenous Self-Determination and implementation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This type of alliance is one example among others, in the widespread network of influence of the fossil fuel industry.

Funding is also used by some industrial companies to appear as climate action players. They are keen on funding low impact climate action, community association groups or municipal events. These companies fund lobbyists to influence key players in government and international events, as well.

Advertising is commonly used to create an image of industrial groups onside with climate action policies and programs.

Finding a credible spokesperson with influence over large groups of people

Bernays (1972 [1928]) indicates that if one wants to sell bacon, it is more effective to convince someone trusted and who influences habits, such as doctors, to say publicly that people should eat bacon, rather than paying advertisers. Such a strategy is replicated by the current energy-related industry, instrumentally recruiting spokesperson with symbolic legitimacy in public relations roles to influence public opinion. Similarly, having public health doctors relaying post-truth messages, or people presenting themselves as scientists, as in the Great Barrington Declaration, is an effective way to give credibility to messages disconnected from what scientific evidence indicates.

Social media are an effective way to amplify post-truth tactics. First, the receiver is targeted by specific messages, isolating them further from what other groups think and reinforcing their own prejudices (Brahms, 2020). Second, the message is carried to other audiences by diverse individuals. The messages create doubt against science and don’t have one spokesperson, but multiple ones, at all levels of society:

The new media—found on Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube internet platforms—send messages that can quickly go viral, circulating and recirculating at unprecedented speeds. Facilitated by the use of sophisticated algorithms and bots that collect and distribute information, the messages are fed to people—on both the political right and the left—in ways that either substantiate their established biases or create new ones. (Fischer, 2021: 19)

One implication of the ubiquity of social media is that no one is protected from becoming a carrier or a recipient of these messages; we see them relayed by a diversity of people in terms of educational level, position in society, and political allegiance. Post-truth narratives are the modern version of propaganda, “an organized campaign of persuasion that attempts to control information that is intended to influence belief and behavior” (Artz, 2020: 1408), which has expanded due to effectiveness of social media as a means of communication and sharing information widely (Poulakidakos et al., 2018).

What is now called post-truth strategy is in fact the actualization of propaganda tactics in a world with widespread social media influence. Both Chomsky (2002) and Bernays (1972 [1928]) indicate that propaganda (1) has been a normal activity for maintaining the actual order of power; and (2) is the result of a collusion between private interests (business, industries) and an elite in government engineering public opinion and consent.

Lies in politics and the mass manipulation of public opinion are not new phenomena (Arendt, 2012 [1967]). Arendt distinguishes between the political process which relies on (re)interpretation of facts and lies, and the position of the truth teller’s role, which belongs to the philosopher, the academic, and the reporter. By saying so, she indicates that reinterpretation of facts and lies are constitutive of politics, contrary to other roles. However, contemporary post-truth events and trends seem to be distinct from the phenomena analyzed by Arendt in several ways. First, the influence of lies extends well beyond nations’ borders, due to the instrumental and powerful uses of social media. Social media, with its global reach, has immensely expanded both the scope and scale of disinformation by simultaneously affecting many people in varied locations all around the world. Second, the loss or lack of independent media. Arendt (2012 [1967]) presents the absolute necessity of protecting the independence of journalism because of the capacity to deliver information outside of the political realm. Third, the observation that authoritative positions that were deliberately created to be independent of politics (e.g. statutory positions like public health officers) have lost this independence and can become themselves carriers and producers of political lies, themselves contributing to public opinion manipulation.

In a world where social media penetrates all classes and algorithms reinforce exposure to content aligning with individual preferences, a new world for opinion manufacturing has opened for private interests. This phenomenon will probably accentuate the already existing tendency of governments to serve private interests, as their operational capacity of influencing public opinion is also losing effectiveness, as compared with social media, which would put the small elite in government at risk of losing the financial support they need for (re-)election.

The origins of emergent post-truth narratives are difficult to trace; their influence is not confined to more vocal protest groups, but also influences people who are educated and in positions of power, further reinforcing the legitimacy of false and biased information. There is no context protected from post-truth. One could identify people relaying propaganda information or being influenced by such tactics in all spheres of society, including in government and academia.

Post-truth strategies and tactics are more likely to occur around issues that have potential to disrupt the existing functioning and power balance of our society, which includes transformative actions aimed at addressing environmental and social crises. What is particularly worrisome is that this phenomenon is occurring at a time when human health and survival are clearly threatened, not only due to climate change and related climate events, but also to loss of biodiversity and pollution (Brousselle and McDavid, 2020; Haines et al., 2014; Neira, 2014; Watts et al., 2015). We are living in unprecedented times which require unprecedented public action to protect life on Earth. However, as a real transformation is needed; many have a lot to lose. We can already expect unprecedented global propaganda to be implemented through different channels to prevent any change to the current balance of power. Science and scientists will be the target as they are holders of truth, to use Arendt’s words. However, this dream of the Academe as an effective counterpower has not come to life, and the funding mechanisms of universities depending mostly on governments might jeopardize their survival and integrity, and this even more if the Academe incarnated this truth teller counterpower to politics (Arendt, 2012 [1967]).

Fertile ground for post-truth strategies and tactics

This powerful propaganda phenomenon is taking place on fertile ground which involves several layers:

1. When presented with a threatening environment, a typical individual’s psychological reaction is not to face or respond to it. Human beings are currently experiencing existential threats: climate change and its related climate events, loss of biodiversity, pollution, pandemics, as well as wars. This broader context leads to discourses of catastrophe that increase individual psychological non-response. We are prisoners of our own psychological mechanisms when confronted with a high level of uncertainty (Gifford, 2011; McIntyre, 2018).

2. Increasing inequities create conditions for stimulating discontent. Society has failed to transform our institutions to eliminate systemic barriers and exclusionary practices, which further alienates vulnerable groups.

3. Distrust is increasing (Fischer, 2021; House, 2020). We are experiencing a crisis of distrust in which people do not trust the government, their institutions, and each other (House, 2020). The pandemic activated governmental power and control over people’s decisions about their individual preferences (confinement measures are an example), which ultimately increased discontent.

4. These elements may play in combination, reinforcing and deepening the social and economic fractures in society. In response, organized groups of discontent are emerging (Fischer, 2021; House, 2020), such as Q-Anon in the United States and the Freedom Convoy anti-government movement in Canada.

All these layers create a fertile context for disinformation to spread and for public opinion to be manipulated. As a result, it is difficult to identify one specific post-truth tactic as the root cause of a given public opinion or policy. Rather, it is a series of tactics levering the power of social media that are simultaneously implemented.

There are many articles relaying the Oxford Dictionaries’ post-truth definition (Brahms, 2020; Dobes, 2017; Farmer, 2019; Picciotto, 2019):

a term relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

The Oxford Dictionaries’ definition does not represent the deliberate manipulation of information and public opinion that is currently being orchestrated. In fact, the manipulation of emotions is a well-known persuasion tactic used in propaganda (Poulakidakos et al., 2018). What defines contemporary post-truth is not the importance of emotions, but the deliberate manipulation of opinion and disinformation to influence public opinion.

Similarly, post-truth is often presented as rooted in constructivism and post-modernism; this presentation puts responsibility on a paradigm debate, rather than acknowledging the political aspects of this phenomenon (if interested in reading about the role of emotions or the philosophical debate on post-modernism, see the chapters in Brahms, 2020; House and Howe, 1999; Picciotto, 2019).

As stated by Fischer,

whereas many critics of post-truth argue that the phenomenon can be traced to the relativism of postmodern constructivism, we argue here that this epistemic contention rests on a simplistic misunderstanding of constructivism and serves to divert attention away from the political motives that have given rise to post-truth as a tactic of denialism. (Fischer, 2021: 1)

The strategies of influence, used with the purpose of maintaining the order of economic and power structures, are powerfully implemented to shape public opinion and public policies, as well as to reduce the influence of experts and scientists. This post-truth era presents new challenges for the evaluator and for the field of evaluation. As “evaluators operate inside society” (House, 2020: 28), what does this new context of post-truth, of large-scale propaganda, and use of tactics of influence mean for our practice? If “post-truth cannot, as such, be resolved simply by recourse to better information and the facilitation of deliberative argumentation” (Fischer, 2021: 67), what should the evaluator’s posture and practice be?

What stance can evaluators take in this post-truth era?

Evaluators undoubtedly have varied experiences of post-truth. Those working directly on topics that potentially affect powerful economic interests may be confronted with post-truth tactics more directly. Furthermore, evaluators may not necessarily have the same level of agency to shape their own work, particularly if they work as consultants or within government. However, whatever the topic or their evaluations or their professional status, all evaluators may work in contexts where people’s systems of beliefs are influenced by post-truth content. How can evaluators practice in a world that is so fragmented, polarized, and where science is contested? In the following, we will explore potential pathways evaluators can adopt to resist post-truth tactics and disinformation.

Fighting back against post-truth strategies and tactics will involve that evaluators realize “that they are not dealing with an orthodox scientific debate based on sound data and evidence, but a well-funded sophisticated science denialist campaign based on ideological and corporate interests” (Gorski and Yamey, 2021, pp. online, no page). The evaluator will not be able to counteract disinformation and opinion manipulation strategies by presenting better facts, better information, or through implementing better deliberative processes (Fischer, 2021; House, 2020). Actually, the capacity of one individual to counterbalance varied multilevel strategies from powerful interests is likely to be small. However, this is not a reason to back down. We will discuss next some elements, for evaluators’ consideration, to fight back against post-truth strategies and tactics.

Avoid the “us versus them” condescension trap

If only by virtue of their role, but more generally because of their training, evaluators are “experts” and are perceived as such. In the context of populist politics, it is especially likely that evaluators see themselves and their positions as more valid than those who are skeptical or even opposed to science-based beliefs:

Many scientists and technical experts have long held citizens’ responses to be irrational, just as in the cases of climate, vaccine and COVID-19 denial. Indeed, there is a long tradition of positivist thought that points to such “irrationalities” and maintains that ordinary social knowledge cannot be considered valid knowledge. (Fischer, 2021: 35)

The nature of populist politics is to frame their position as one that represents the “will of the people” against an external enemy represented by elites or decisional institutions and all experts (Marquardt et al., 2022). Evaluators, positioned as experts, represent what populist politics despise and naturally list in the “enemy” category. From an evaluator’s perspective, entertaining this divide is not productive.

Furthermore, nobody can claim to be totally protected from propagandist influences. The COVID-19 example above demonstrates that actors effectively contributing to disinformation occupy all kinds of positions in society, and nothing in their education, level of income, responsibility, or political position, offers protection against disinformation and tactics of influence.

One approach is offered by House who stresses the importance of cognitive empathy:

Cognitive empathy is not feeling empathy. It’s not feeling the same as others. Nor is it sympathy, feeling sorrow or pity for them. Rather it’s the ability to understand people’s predicament as they understand it. Their view will seem rational within their perspective. We can understand why they believe the way they do. (House, 2020: 28)

Identifying different frames of beliefs and mindsets is an asset for leading important conversations. This posture should help evaluators think of their evaluation processes to engage with evidence skeptics/deniers, at all stages of their evaluations, and with all kinds of interlocutors, but also to envision their processes to maintain the integrity of the evaluation and to safeguard their projects against propaganda.

Map the configuration of power, influences, and beliefs

The evaluation process can be designed to reach specific purposes and the evaluator has some agency in its design. However, the degree of context polarization will determine the (im)possibility for the evaluator to create bridges. Previous work has shown that the characteristics of the context primarily determine use of the evaluation projects (Contandriopoulos and Brousselle, 2012). In polarized contexts, collaborative and participatory approaches are unlikely to be effective (Contandriopoulos and Brousselle, 2012) and approaches such as House & Howe’s Deliberative Democratic Evaluation were identified as an avenue (Contandriopoulos and Brousselle, 2012; House and Howe, 1999). However, post-truth contexts are different in some regards. For example, the assumption that some grounds for democratic debate exist may no longer be valid. When reflecting on Deliberative Democratic Evaluation, which he defended throughout his career, House mentions that these processes are not “potent enough” in the current post-truth era (House, 2020: 33).

A vibrant public sphere, where individuals are informed and engaged in public deliberation on the pressing issues of the day, is a pre-requisite to a health democracy. (Jarman, 2016: 115)

In some contexts, the conditions for using deliberative democratic approaches are no longer present (House, 2020; House and Howe, 1999). As mentioned earlier, the flow of disinformation, the disappearance of independent journalism, the echo chambers of social media, and so on create conditions where debate is not seen as an asset, and where factual reality is defeated, which also leads to the defeat of democracy. As Arendt (2005 [1967]) mentioned in a premonitory warning:

It has frequently been noticed that the surest long-term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism—an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established. In other words, the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.

And for this trouble there is no remedy. It is but the other side of the disturbing contingency of all factual reality. Since everything that has actually happened in the realm of human affairs could just as well have been otherwise, the possibilities for lying are boundless, and this boundlessness makes for self-defeat. (p. 309)

From an evaluation standpoint there are actually two possibilities: Either the degree of polarization still allows for the creation of bridges between a diversity of communities (not geographically defined given the influence of social media) with different feelings, values, beliefs, and representations (Yanow, 2000), or it is impossible to create those bridges. In the latter circumstance, advocating for a scientific consensus will likely be in vain. In both cases, an understanding and mapping of the context is a precondition for being effective as an evaluator and for choosing appropriate processes. Given the importance of resources poured into engineered information and opinion manipulation, evaluators will not be able to counterbalance the flow of disinformation and discrediting attempts; however, they will be able to anticipate resistances and adapt their evaluation processes accordingly. Furthermore, it should help them focus on what matters the most, without being instrumentally distracted by useless pseudoscientific debates. Again, one of the current propaganda approach’s effective strategies is to instill doubt in peoples’ minds by keeping researchers/evaluators busy arguing about details, instead of uniting their efforts on what matters the most. Understanding the strategies used and being aware of the current disinformation trends should help evaluators ignore the strategies of agitation, staying away from useless debates, and instead focusing on the most important information and actions.

Mapping the context and understanding the configuration of power, influences, and beliefs is a precondition for being effective as an evaluator and for choosing appropriate processes (Gorski and Yamey, 2021). This includes:

1. Assessing the project’s level of sensitivity to post-truth strategies: Does it threaten the existing power/authority structure? Are there topics related to the subject of the evaluation which might be the subject of dissent or may be targets for polarization?

2. Mapping diverse actors/communities, interests in the topic, and in the evaluation and their positions, with regard to the topic under study. For this stage, identifying language artifacts might help in identifying frames of thoughts and beliefs (Yanow, 2000);

3. Mapping the “architecture of their similarities and differences with respect to the issue” (Yanow, 2000: 3). Interpretive approaches to policymaking can help in analyzing communities’ diverse positions and in applying the configuration of values, beliefs, and interests (Fischer, 2019, 2021; Yanow, 2000).

This mapping exercise will help understand the level of discrepancy in the systems of beliefs and inform how the evaluation process should be designed. It should also identify if common ground can be identified and strategically used. Finally, this exercise should help the evaluator anticipate potential attacks, including via social media.

Safeguard evaluations from propaganda

Post-truth is shaking the foundations of many well-established approaches in our field. The question is not only how to engage different actors in evaluation processes but also how to safeguard the evaluation process and results from disinformation. Existing knowledge on how to work in polarized contexts and climate denial offers some guidance:

1. Informing participants from the start about the risks of disinformation, the existence of contentious topics, and competing interests can help debunk tactics of influence if discussed before they happen (Gorski and Yamey, 2021; Lewandowsky, 2021a).

2. Highlighting scientific consensus and providing scientific information has been identified as contributing to building shared understanding even in groups with divided positions (Gorski and Yamey, 2021; Lewandowsky, 2021a).

3. Separating facts and observations from recommendations and policy options, recognizing the importance of deliberation around policy choices, so that communities and people can contribute to determining what options have most value for them (Fischer, 2021; Yanow, 2000). Most evaluation projects focus on assessing the value of various policy or program options rather than contributing to scientific knowledge. Clearly delineating between information that is factual and policy options might be a way to reintegrate democratic debate. Arendt emphasized that it is not the role of scientists to advocate for policy options without distinguishing between what the science indicates and what the policy choices are (Arendt, 2012 [1967]). Furthermore, focusing on communicating policy options rather than focusing on polarizing topics is more likely to rally support from people with divergent perspectives (Lewandowsky, 2021a).

4. Using culturally responsive language (Gorski and Yamey, 2021; Lewandowsky, 2021a). Messages designed to echo participants’ “cultural frame of reference are particularly easy to understand (Jones and Song, 2014) and have greater impact” (Lewandowsky, 2021a: 10). Formulating the policy option based on accepted cultural norms will foster the chances of dialogue around a project. Examples of such strategies exist in other domains (Jones et al., 2020).

Combining these different elements while designing their project should provide evaluators with solid grounds to resist and fight back post-truth strategies and tactics. However, we acknowledge that these elements may seem limited when confronted with a high level of polarization and disinformation. What would be other inspirational avenues for dealing with post-truth politics? What can we learn from more specific studies on climate denial and other applied post-truth topics? Could some engagement activities from other disciplines be sources of inspiration for conducting evaluations in this post-truth era? Are there other processes that would support consensus, shared representations, and trust building?

Conclusion

The current state of our world requires major transformations. We can expect powerful economic and political interests to resist any inclination to rebalance power relations and their associated implications for equity in society. Post-truth strategies are implemented to resist these transformations. For the most part, they are almost invisible, and one needs to specifically analyze the stakes at play and the dynamics to be aware of the underlying disinformation strategies. For researchers and evaluators, adopting the posture of resisting disinformation, it might feel like this fight is lost in advance. Better understanding and being able to identify post-truth tactics will not prevent their occurrence. However, it will allow evaluators to illuminate the broader influences at play in their contexts, as well as to anticipate resistance. We hope this article will support those believing in democratic governance to identify the new propaganda tactics, raise awareness, and resist through their work and personal engagement. To finish, we leave you with Hannah Arendt’s words which still resonate with this twenty-first century world: “While probably no former time tolerated so many diverse opinions on religious or philosophical matters, factual truth, if it happens to oppose a given group’s profit or pleasure, is greeted today with greater hostility than ever before” (Arendt, 2005 [1967], 2012 [1967]: 300).