Whose Evidence, Whose Judgment? The Cultural Constitution of Evaluation's Core Concepts

This Forum paper responds to the call by Sridharan et al. for epistemological pluralism in evaluation by pursuing a question their work raises: If Hawaiian epistemology reshapes how we understand evaluation criteria, what happens when we examine evaluation's core concepts through other cultural lenses? Drawing on a framework for understanding how culture and context coevolve to shape societies, this paper argues that concepts central to evaluation, such as evidence and judgment, are understood fundamentally differently across cultural traditions. Illustrative examples from diverse traditions demonstrate that these differences are not superficial but reflect deep divergences in how societies perceive, know, and value. These parallels are comparative. The concepts do not map directly onto conventional evaluative ideas; they illuminate how different cultural formations approach issues of concern to evaluation. The paper argues that if it is to serve diversity authentically, evaluation must move beyond cultural sensitivity to cultural interrogation—systematically reexamining its foundational concepts through diverse epistemological lenses.