Autism, epistemic injustice, and epistemic disablement: a relational account of epistemic agency

Catala, Amandine; Faucher, Luc; Poirier, Pierre

doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03192-7

Cited by 52 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To move toward a more participatory future in autism research, it is important also to recognize the historical and ongoing epistemic injustice practiced against autistic people. Broadly, epistemic injustice refers to a range of injustices carried out against a person in their capacity as a knower or a producer of knowledge; see Catala et al (2021) for a detailed discussion of the many types of epistemic injustice autistic people face. In short, autistic people face both testimonial injustice, in which biases against autistic people serve to diminish their credibility as epistemic agents; and hermeneutical injustice, in which the epistemic resources (e.g., concepts and language) necessary for autistic people to understand and articulate their experiences are lacking ( Fricker, 2007 ; Catala et al, 2021 ; Dinishak, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Broadly, epistemic injustice refers to a range of injustices carried out against a person in their capacity as a knower or a producer of knowledge; see Catala et al (2021) for a detailed discussion of the many types of epistemic injustice autistic people face. In short, autistic people face both testimonial injustice, in which biases against autistic people serve to diminish their credibility as epistemic agents; and hermeneutical injustice, in which the epistemic resources (e.g., concepts and language) necessary for autistic people to understand and articulate their experiences are lacking ( Fricker, 2007 ; Catala et al, 2021 ; Dinishak, 2021 ). Addressing this epistemic injustice is both a necessary precondition for, and a likely result of, effective participatory autism research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From ivory tower to inclusion: Stakeholders’ experiences of community engagement in Australian autism research

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autistic people, and other community stakeholders, are gaining increasing recognition as valuable contributors to autism research, resulting in a growing corpus of participatory autism research. Yet, we know little about the ways in which stakeholders practice and experience community engagement in autism research. In this study, we interviewed 20 stakeholders (academics, autistic people, family members/careers, research students, and service providers) regarding their experiences of community engagement in Australian autism research. Through reflexive thematic analysis of interview data, we generated four themes. First, our participants perceived academia as an “ivory tower,” disconnected from community members’ lives and priorities. Second, our participants identified that different stakeholders tended to hold different roles within their research projects: academics typically retained power and control, while community members’ roles tended toward tokenism. Third, our participants spoke of the need to “bridge the gap” between academia and the community, highlighting communication, accessibility, and planning as key to conducting effective participatory research. Lastly, participants emphasized the changing nature of autism research, describing participatory research as “the way of the future.” Our findings reflect both the progress achieved to date, and the challenges that lie ahead, as the field advances toward genuine co-production of autism research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From ivory tower to inclusion: Stakeholders’ experiences of community engagement in Australian autism research

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thapar-Björkert et al, 2016), by neurodiversity (e.g. Catala, Faucher and Poirier, 2021) and/or by sexuality (e.g. Halliwell, 2018) will find it harder to evidence epistemic injustice than those with more privilege.…”

Section: Epistemic Injustice and Embodimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

21st century bridling: Non-disclosure agreements in cases of organizational misconduct

Pagan

2022

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I argue that non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) represent the latest in a continuum of tools used to silence women who seek justice for the misconduct of those in authority. I draw a connection between the use of these apparently objective, non-corporeal organizational processes and the historic use of the scold’s bridle, a corporeal instrument of control applied to physically silence. Specifically, I argue that both are on a continuum of violence from the antiquated, overt and embodied, to the present day, covert and epistemic with embodied effects. This article offers a critical phenomenological analysis of the effects on women who submitted evidence of their experiences to the UK Parliament Women and Equalities Committee Inquiry into the use of NDAs in Discrimination Cases. By critically analysing these accounts I offer a contribution towards a continued understanding of the ways in which oppressive organizational practices according to gender continue to function and reproduce through practices of embodied epistemic injustice.

show abstract

“…Conducting research about a marginalized group without their inclusion is epistemic injustice * (Byskov, 2021;Fricker, 2007). Neurodivergent people regularly face epistemic injustice (Catala et al, 2021;Chapman & Carel, 2022). For example, even when tasks are modified to allow for cultural differences, similar calls for accommodation of neurodivergence are ignored (Hillary, 2020).…”

Section: Why Is It Wrong That Cognitive Science Has Not Taken Neurodi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Puzzle to Progress: How engaging with Neurodiversity can improve Cognitive Science

Sulik¹,

Manalili²,

Pearson³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In cognitive science, there is a tacit norm that phenomena such as cultural variation or synaesthesia are worthy examples of cognitive diversity that contribute to a better understanding of cognition, but that other forms of cognitive diversity (e.g. autism, ADHD and dyslexia) are primarily interesting only as examples of deficit, dysfunction, or impairment. This status quo is dehumanizing and holds back much-needed research. In contrast, the Neurodiversity Paradigm argues that such experiences are not necessarily deficits, but rather are natural reflections of biodiversity. Here we propose that neurodiversity is an important topic for future research in cognitive science. We discuss why cognitive science has thus far failed to engage with neurodiversity, why this gap presents both ethical and scientific challenges for the field and, crucially, why cognitive science will produce better theories of human cognition if the field engages with neurodiversity in the same way that it values other forms of cognitive diversity. Doing so will not only empower marginalized researchers but will also present an opportunity for cognitive science to benefit from the unique contributions of neurodivergent researchers and communities.

show abstract

Autism, epistemic injustice, and epistemic disablement: a relational account of epistemic agency

Cited by 52 publications

References 61 publications

From ivory tower to inclusion: Stakeholders’ experiences of community engagement in Australian autism research

From ivory tower to inclusion: Stakeholders’ experiences of community engagement in Australian autism research

21st century bridling: Non-disclosure agreements in cases of organizational misconduct

From Puzzle to Progress: How engaging with Neurodiversity can improve Cognitive Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About