Beyond the Data Deficit: Rethinking Evidence-Based Policy Making in Northern Canada

Abstract

Evidence-based policy making (EBPM) has become a normative gold standard in contemporary governance, yet its universal application obscures the colonial assumptions embedded in dominant evidence regimes. This article offers a normative critique of EBPM as it is currently imposed on northern and Indigenous contexts. It argues that the elevation of conventional, quantitative, and Eurocentric evidence forms reproduces structural and epistemic harms—that is, harms that emerge when dominant evidence standards dismiss or undervalue Indigenous knowledge and community-based ways of knowing—by holding northern governments to standards they were never resourced to meet, while simultaneously devaluing Indigenous epistemologies, land-based knowledge, and relational approaches to well-being. In doing so, EBPM generates artificial data scarcity, perpetuates colonial governance logics, and limits the potential for effective, locally grounded policy making. The article contends that meaningful reconciliation between EBPM and northern governance realities requires further research into methodologically-plural policy practices that recognize multiple ways of knowing, legitimize Indigenous-led data governance, and expand what counts as “adequate” evidence. Such an approach not only strengthens policy effectiveness but also advances the broader goals of reconciliation, self-determination, and epistemic justice. This reframing of EBPM is essential for building evidence systems that reflect the diversity, complexity, and sovereignty of the northern communities they are intended to serve.