This article opens up the blackbox through which evidence is selected and assessed in the making of guidelines and recommendations in global governance, through an exploration of “methods regimes.” Methods regimes are a special kind of sociomaterial arrangement, which govern the production and validation of knowledge, by establishing a clear hierachy between alternative forms of research designs. When such regimes become inscribed in processes of global governance, they shape and control what knowledge is deemed valid and thus relevant for policy. We shed light that through a mode of operation that relies on a discourse of procedurality, a dispersed but powerful network of epistemic operators, and a dense web of infrastructures, methods regimes constitute and police the making of “policy-relevant knowledge” in global governance. Through an examination of the case of “GRADE” (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), a standardized system that evaluates and grades the quality of evidence in global health, we show that its dominance has worked to the effect of empowering a new cast of methodologists, seen as more objective and portable across domains, sidelining certain forms of evidence that do not conform with its own methodological criteria of scientificity, and “clinicalizing” research in medicine and beyond.

中文翻译：

---

全球治理中的方法制度：全球卫生中的证据制定政治

本文通过探索“方法制度”，打开了在制定全球治理指南和建议时选择和评估证据的黑匣子。方法制度是一种特殊的社会物质安排，它通过在不同形式的研究设计之间建立清晰的等级制度来管理知识的生产和验证。当此类制度被纳入全球治理进程时，它们会塑造和控制哪些知识被认为是有效的，从而与政策相关。我们阐明，通过依赖程序性话语的运作模式、分散但强大的认知运算符网络以及密集的基础设施网络，方法制度构成并监管全球治理中“政策相关知识”的形成.