Epistemic security
Executive summary for policymakers — why epistemic security matters
What is epistemic security?
Epistemic security is the capacity of societies to produce, distribute, acquire, interpret and use reliable information so that public beliefs and decisions (by citizens, institutions and governments) are grounded in truth, evidence and accountable processes.
Weak epistemic security undermines democratic decision-making, emergency response, public trust in institutions, and ultimately national resilience.
Recent policy literature frames epistemic security as distinct from — but deeply connected to — information integrity, media health, and information-ecosystem resilience: protecting knowledge systems is both a public-good and a strategic national interest.
Key reading: Tackling threats to informed decision making in democratic societies - Promoting epistemic security in a technologically-advanced world, Turing Institute 2020
Why you should care right now
Threats are urgent and structural: coordinated disinformation campaigns, platform amplification dynamics, and generative-AI-enabled content manipulation increase the speed, scale and plausibility of false information. These threats affect elections, public health responses, climate policy, and crisis management. (European Parliament)
Epistemic harms cascade into policy harms: when publics or officials act on systematically distorted information, policy options narrow and errors proliferate (poor uptake of vaccines, misallocation of emergency resources, paralysis over climate action). Strengthening epistemic security thus reduces downstream governance and economic costs. (UNDP)
Policy levers work best in combination: research and practice show no single fix. Effective approaches combine media/communication policy, platform regulation, civil-society capacity, public-interest journalism, education, technical safeguards and targeted research funding. (nitrd.gov)
Practical implications for policymakers (brief)
Treat epistemic security as cross-sectoral policy (national security, public health, education, communications). Coordinate across ministries and with independent institutions. (Turing Institute)
Invest in measurement & research — you cannot manage what you do not measure (ecosystem mapping, exposure studies, cross-national resilience indices). (nitrd.gov)
Support independent media, local journalism and public-interest content creation as core infrastructure. (UNDP)
Regulate platform incentives transparently (algorithmic accountability, crisis protocols) while protecting free expression. (European Parliament)
Build public information resilience: media literacy, trusted intermediaries (e.g., scientists and community leaders), and emergency communication playbooks. (Turing Institute)
Literature review — best resources (annotated & evaluated)
Below are some of the essential resources into conceptual foundations, policy frameworks/guidance, empirical research & measurement, technical/operational guidance, and newer/emerging work.
Each item has a succinct summary, its utility to policymakers, strengths, and limitations.
A. Conceptual foundations (what to read first)
Turing Institute — Tackling threats to informed decision-making: An evidence-based definition of epistemic security (2020). Summary: Offers an operational definition of “epistemically secure society” and explains causal pathways by which information threats impair decision-making. Useful as a primer linking theory to measurable harms. Why read: Strong, policy-oriented conceptual framing; good entry point for officials designing cross-government strategies. (Turing Institute) Limitations: UK-centric examples; newer threats (post-2020 generative AI) are not covered.
Wardle, C. & Derakhshan, H. — Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking (Council of Europe, 2017). Summary: Introduces the widely-used taxonomy — misinformation, disinformation, malinformation — and maps phases and actors in “information disorder.” Why read: Foundation for distinguishing types of problems and tailoring interventions (education vs. counter-propaganda vs. platform policy). (Council of Europe) Limitations: More about classification than programmatic policy evaluation.
B. Policy frameworks, guidance and strategic roadmaps
UNDP — Information Integrity: Forging a Pathway to Truth, Resilience and Trust (2022). Summary: Strategic guidance linking information integrity to governance, peacebuilding and development; emphasizes plural, rights-respecting responses. Why read: Useful for ministries working at the intersection of development and information policy; provides practical program ideas (supporting local media, fact-checking networks). (UNDP) Limitations: High-level recommendations; implementation detail varies by context.
NITRD / US Roadmap for Information Integrity R&D (IIRD Roadmap, 2022). Summary: Identifies R&D priorities: ecosystem models and metrics, safeguards for people, technical detection tools, evaluation methods, and public-sector needs. Why read: Essential for research funders and tech policy designers — tells you where to invest to improve measurement and tools. (nitrd.gov) Limitations: US federal research focus; applicability depends on national research capacity.
Carnegie Endowment — Countering Disinformation Effectively: An Evidence-Based Policy Guide (2024). Summary: Reviews evidence for policy proposals (content moderation, transparency, civic education, platform design changes) and ranks their effectiveness and trade-offs. Why read: Pragmatic, up-to-date policy menu; helpful for weighing interventions under political or legal constraints. (Carnegie Endowment) Limitations: Rapidly evolving landscape (AI); recommendations need continual revalidation.
European Parliament / EU brief — Information integrity and the European democracy shield (2024). Summary: Policy brief on EU responses, regulations and the interplay between AI, platform rules and democratic safeguards. Why read: Useful as a model for legislative approaches (e.g., transparency obligations, crisis protocols). (European Parliament)
C. Empirical research & resilience measurement
Humprecht, Eszter et al. — Resilience to Online Disinformation: A Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research (2020, many citations). Summary: Proposes a comparative theoretical framework to measure country-level resilience to disinformation, including media system features, digital literacy and trust levels. Why read: For policymakers seeking indicators and diagnostic tools to prioritize interventions. (repository.uantwerpen.be) Limitations: Measurement is complex — requires commissioning nationally-representative studies.
G20 / Academic mapping of the information integrity debate (2024) Summary: Recent mapping document that situates global policy debates and highlights governance gaps at the international level. Why read: Good for multilateral policy coordination and identifying best practices to import. (g20.utoronto.ca)
D. Operational & technical guidance (platforms, crisis comms, AI)
UNESCO / Global Initiative on Information Integrity (climate change focus and broader resources). Summary: Programmatic work on trusted science communication, platform engagement, and training for journalists and officials. Why read: Practical toolkits for crisis communication (climate and health), and partnerships with scientific communities. (UNESCO)
Practical policy toolkits and case studies (various briefings: UN, EU, national bodies, think tanks — e.g., Demos UK ‘Epistemic Security 2029’). Summary: National-level strategy documents arguing for treating epistemic security as a strategic objective (example: Demos UK paper). Why read: Useful to see concrete proposals for national governance architectures and cross-sector coordination. (Demos)
E. Emerging, critical and normative work
Recent academic critiques on epistemic security and power (various 2023–2025 papers). Summary: Literature that interrogates how “securitizing” knowledge risks centralizing epistemic authority or enabling censorship when poorly designed. Why read: Important check for policymakers: ensure measures respect pluralism, avoid concentration of information power, and include safeguards for speech and accountability. (Taylor & Francis Online)
How to use these resources — recommended reading path & policy checklist
Reading path (quick):
Turing Institute paper (concept + definition). (Turing Institute)
Wardle & Derakhshan (taxonomy of information disorder). (Council of Europe)
UNDP guidance and UNESCO practical initiatives (implementation angles). (UNDP)
NITRD Roadmap + Carnegie guide (R&D and evidence-based interventions). (nitrd.gov)
Recent critiques on securitization risks before drafting law. (Taylor & Francis Online)
Policy checklist (operational)
Create an interagency epistemic security taskforce (include civil society, media, academic and platform representatives). (Turing Institute)
Commission an ecosystem mapping and resilience assessment (use frameworks like Humprecht et al. and NITRD priorities). (repository.uantwerpen.be)
Fund public-interest journalism & local reporting (UNDP guidance). (UNDP)
Require platform transparency for crisis periods (matching EU/EP practices) and independent audits of algorithmic amplification. (European Parliament)
Scale public information resilience: media literacy curricula, rapid-response trusted messengers, and pre-tested crisis comms playbooks. (Turing Institute)
Set up an R&D fund for ecosystem monitoring and counter-AI misinfo tools (per NITRD roadmap). (nitrd.gov)
Embed rights safeguards: judicial oversight, sunset clauses, and oversight bodies to prevent misuse of epistemic-security measures. (Taylor & Francis Online)
Strengths and gaps across the literature (brief)
Strengths: Clear conceptual frameworks (Wardle & Derakhshan), operational roadmaps (NITRD, UNDP), and increasing cross-sector policy guidance (UNESCO, EU, Carnegie). Evidence synthesis is improving, and R&D agendas are clearer. (Council of Europe)
Gaps: Real-time evaluation of interventions (what works at scale), standardized resilience metrics across countries, and guidance on managing AI-driven content manipulation remain nascent — policymakers must treat these as priority investments. (nitrd.gov)
Short annotated bibliography (one-line takeaways)
Turing Institute (2020) — Operational definition of epistemic security; start here for policy framing. (Turing Institute)
Wardle & Derakhshan (2017, Council of Europe) — Classic taxonomy of information disorder; use it to classify problems and match responses. (Council of Europe)
UNDP (2022) — Programmatic guidance linking information integrity to development and peacebuilding. (UNDP)
NITRD Information Integrity Roadmap (2022) — R&D priorities and measurement agenda for funders and researchers. (nitrd.gov)
Carnegie Endowment (2024) — Evidence-based policy guide on countering disinformation, with trade-off analysis. (Carnegie Endowment)
UNESCO initiatives (ongoing) — Practical toolkits and multilateral programs (climate, health). (UNESCO)
European Parliament brief (2024) — Legislative/regulatory perspectives and EU policy approaches. (European Parliament)
Humprecht et al. (2020) — Measurement framework for cross-national resilience to disinformation. (repository.uantwerpen.be)
Demos UK — Epistemic Security 2029 (2025) — National strategy style paper arguing for treating epistemic security as a strategic objective. (Demos)
Last updated
Was this helpful?