Evidence is the way we tell truth from mere belief and, when used responsibly, can positively shape our world while limiting the harms we do through our actions. There has never been more data to inform our evidence generation work, yet this abundance has brought with it new challenges that we don’t have the means to fully make sense of. This is the first in a series of articles looking at evidence issues in 2024 (and beyond).

I spend a lot of time thinking about evidence issues, which is to ask how do we know something has truth to it? If we ask thoughtful questions about what we do and what we seek in a disciplined, systematic, and considerate way, our answers can guide us toward creating better, healthier things that have a positive impact on the world and avoid many of the harms that come from our actions.

It’s because of evidence that we’ve seen dramatic reductions in morbidity and mortality attributed to many common health-affecting conditions and why most people live longer lives with fewer debilitating conditions than at any point in human history. It’s also because of evidence that we’ve learned how the many material improvements in our lives have contributed to both human wellbeing and inflicted harm in the natural world. In both cases, evidence helps us understand where we are, how we got here, and informs us about where we are going.

The quality of our evidence generation — and the sensemaking process that goes with it — is tied (by evidence!) to better outcomes than comparable situations where it’s not used.

Yet, this has never been less straightforward than it is now. That realization prompted this first of a series of articles on the state of evidence generation and how the volume and complexity of information available to us and the interconnections they create is making it harder to make sense of what is going on and how. That’s not the end of evidence generation, but it does represent a distinct shift in how we do it if we are to be effective in making a positive difference in our world.

Finding Truth: My Take

It’s probably best to state my position on truth and evidence.

I take a postpositivist approach to science and avoid the arrogance that comes with claiming we can arrive at absolute certainty about our knowledge of the world and a definitive source of truth. This doesn’t suggest that all truths are equal in their validity or that having a perspective is the same as truth.

Truth comes from belief and evidence. Belief without evidence is just that: belief. Not every belief has evidence supporting it, which doesn’t make it wrong, it just limits the confidence in which we can act on it and expect certain outcomes.

We can generate evidence from many sources that can be shared and made visible to others for debate, discussion, challenge, or addition. The strength of that evidence might vary and change over time (as we learn new things), and the methods for generating it are many, but there are ways we can tell what has truth to it and what doesn’t. My work deals with generating evidence to find truths about certain things.

In most living systems—including human organizations, institutions, and communities—there are many sources of truth and uncertainty. This is why sensemaking is essential to evidence generation in these environments. Sensemaking is a social process where we bring together those with different perspectives who are part of the systems we want to understand to seek clarity and find coherence in the evidence we generate. This clarity might mean finding gaps in our knowledge, surfacing alternative theories or explanations, and assessing the potential consequences of our claims.

Indigenous communities worldwide are experts at sensemaking, using evidence from years of connection to the land and wildlife as their sources of truth. Sensemaking is built into the fabric of many indigenous cultures as just a part of everyday living. Western scientific research has also been effective at generating evidence, yet sensemaking is often neglected, incomplete, or ignored altogether (as if its not necessary: the evidence should stand for itself). Further, the lack of inclusion of different perspectives as part of a sensemaking process for understanding evidence in much Western basic and social science has often led to evidence claims that are not only limited but often harmful.

Sensemaking in these contexts often has to be designed into the culture, rather than existing as a natural part of the culture. (There’s a reason why sensemaking as a concept had to be conceived of by Western academics and practitioners).

However, this is not a post on epistemology and ontology but rather on how evidence generation and sensemaking are becoming more difficult and the state of this in 2024 as illustrated in four examples, which I’ll discuss in detail in future articles.

Evidence in Context: The Volume of Information

Information and data are at the core of evidence, and we are awash in it right now. Estimates vary, but some suggest that 181 zettabytes of data will be produced globally by 2025 by IoT (Internet of Things) devices, social media, and other non-traditional sources. The growing availability of generative AI tools is accelerating this creation and use of data. The variety of sources of information and the means to distribute this information is also a factor. This distribution network produces issues tied to trust, security, and the design of systems both by increasing the amount of information we’re exposed to and the velocity of it. I’ll explain this idea in more detail in future posts.

I will use four interconnected cases to illustrate the state of evidence generation in 2024. Three are digital; one is profoundly analog.

The first concerns AI and how its fundamental structure threatens sound evidence generation and assistance with our understanding of the world around us. The second concerns human-generated information and how the wealth of experience and the means to share that experience lead us to uncertain conclusions. The third case is tied to the reinforcing loops around social networks and the webs created by digital, persistent, interactive media forms. The fourth is tied to environmental complexity and how what we see, feel, and sense is being distorted by changing circumstances to produce uncertainty. While the effects of this complexity are analog, the confusion is partly digital.

Information and Sensemaking

The last part of this series will focus on sensemaking and its relationship with the generation of information and evidence. Sensemaking — understanding what evidence means in context — is what converts information and data into meaningful insights. Sometimes the sensemaking process is simple and straightforward because the connections between what we see and learn and its use is direct and uncomplicated, but these cases are increasingly rare in living systems. Human systems and our global means of travel and sharing information have created much more interconnection between our ideas, actions, and structures than ever before and this increases complexity.

Just as palms blow with the tropical winds, our understanding of evidence must bend and sway while remaining rooted in place. We can’t be rigid about our views, but nor can we let ourselves be taken away by the latest breeze. What all of this means in 2024 is different than what it meant when I first started doing research, evaluation and change-facilitating work. It’s different enough that I feel it worth writing about.

With the polycrises we find ourselves among, evidence will be needed more than ever to navigate us through and to design better things.

Image Credits: Cameron Norman