Civility and Structural Precarity for Faculty of Color in LIS

Gibson, Amelia N.

doi:10.3138/jelis.2019-0006

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They will have experiences with students, other colleagues, and members of the public that you will probably never have. Believe them,” (Gibson, 2019, p. 221). Incorporate research methods that validate testimonies such as counter‐narrative storytelling (Cooke, 2016), autoethnography, or testimonio (Yúdice, 1991).…”

Section: Epistemic Justice and Interventions For Ismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interrupting epistemicide: A practical framework for naming, identifying, and ending epistemic injustice in the information professions

Patin

Sebastian

Yeon

et al. 2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The information professions need a paradigmatic shift to address the epistemicide happening within our field and the ways we have systematically undermined knowledge systems falling outside of Western traditions. Epistemicide is the killing, silencing, annihilation, or devaluing of a knowledge system. We argue epistemicide happens when epistemic injustices are persistent and systematic and collectively work as a structured and systemic oppression of particular ways of knowing. We present epistemicide as a conceptual approach for understanding and analyzing ways knowledge systems are silenced or devalued within Information Science. We extend Fricker's framework by: (a) identifying new types of epistemic injustices, and (b) by adding to Fricker's concepts of Primary and Secondary Harm and introducing the concept of a Third Harm happening at an intergenerational level. Addressing epistemicide is critical for information professionals because we task ourselves with handling knowledge from every field. Acknowledgement of and taking steps to interrupt epistemic injustices and these specific harms are supportive of the social justice movements already happening. This paper serves as an interruption of epistemic injustice by presenting actions toward justice in the form of operationalized interventions of epistemicide.

show abstract

Section: Epistemic Justice and Interventions For Ismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of those four, only Hajibayova (2020) discusses Fricker's conception of epistemic injustice in terms of citizen science and ecological justice. Gibson (2019) discusses the epistemic inequalities present in IS departments. Both Doyle (2001) and Buschman (2006) talk about epistemology and justice separately in their work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interrupting epistemicide: A practical framework for naming, identifying, and ending epistemic injustice in the information professions

Patin

Sebastian

Yeon

et al. 2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These ideas in some way echo those presented in a brief exploratory article (Gibson, 2019) describing the various ways faculty of color in LIS regularly face marginalization through situations of professional and political precarity. These faculty were suggested to be often confronted with a “subtext of precarity” (p. 220), involving expectations to perform certain roles or perform in certain ways because of their race and/or identity.…”

Section: Review Of Literature Relating To Information and Precaritymentioning

confidence: 53%

“…migration, marginality, transitions and liminality) from precarity-focused LIS works (e.g. Gibson, 2019; Lloyd, 2020; Willson, 2019).…”

Section: Review Of Literature Relating To Information and Precaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Embracing theories of precarity for the study of information practices

Stewart-Robertson

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper aims to explore the value of various notions of precarity for the study of information practices and for addressing inequities and marginalization from an information standpoint.Design/methodology/approachSeveral interrelated conceptualizations of precarity and associated terms from outside of library and information science (LIS) are presented. LIS studies involving precarity and related topics, including various situations of insecurity, instability, migration and transition, are then discussed. In that context, new approaches to information precarity and new directions for information practices research are explored.FindingsStudies that draw from holistic characterizations of precarity, especially those engaging with theories from beyond the field, are quite limited in LIS research. Broader understandings of precarity in information contexts may contribute to greater engagement with political and economic considerations and to development of non-individualistic responses and services.Originality/valueThe presentation of a framework for an initial model of information precarity and the expansion of connections between existing LIS research and concepts of precarity from other fields suggest a new lens for further addressing inequities, marginalization and precarious life in LIS research.

show abstract

“…While institutions of higher education often recognize and celebrate the diversity of faculty and student perspectives and backgrounds, very little policy or practice is enacted to acknowledge or resolve the conflicts that arise from differing views of civility and definitions of uncivil behaviors (Levine, 2010 ). The consequences of disagreements are often felt by vulnerable or underrepresented students and faculty who are viewed as noncompliant, unpleasant, or problematic (Bassett, 2020 ; Gibson, 2019 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of the Perceptions of Incivility in Higher Education

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to understand how incivility is viewed across multiple academic programs and respondent subgroups where different institutional and cultural power dynamics may influence the way students and faculty perceive uncivil behaviors. This study used the Conceptual Model for Fostering Civility in Nursing Education as its guiding framework. The Incivility in Higher Education Revised (IHE-R) Survey and a detailed demographic questionnaire were used to gather self-assessment and personal perspective data regarding incivility in the higher education setting. This approach aspired to collect a comprehensive perspective of incivility in higher education. With data from 400 students and 69 faculty, there was limited agreement between faculty and student participants about perceptions and experiences with incivility. Faculty and students did agree that the solution to incivility may be found with the creation of a code of conduct that defines acceptable and unacceptable behavior, role-modeling professionalism and civility, and taking personal responsibility and standing accountable for actions. Despite significant differences in participants’ perceptions of incivility, they shared common solutions. With a shared goal, faculty and students can work toward cultivating civility in higher education.

show abstract

Civility and Structural Precarity for Faculty of Color in LIS

Cited by 14 publications

References 10 publications

Interrupting epistemicide: A practical framework for naming, identifying, and ending epistemic injustice in the information professions

Interrupting epistemicide: A practical framework for naming, identifying, and ending epistemic injustice in the information professions

Embracing theories of precarity for the study of information practices

An Analysis of the Perceptions of Incivility in Higher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About