Decolonial Praxis and Epistemic Injustice

Pitts, Andrea J.

doi:10.4324/9781315212043-14

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers from many fields have spoken out, demanding greater diversity in authorship (Nuñez et al, 2021; Odeny & Bosurgi, 2022; Raja et al, 2022) brought about by fundamental changes to the OA model to level the playing field. Without a radical shift in the OA business model, a cadre of researchers will increasingly be marginalised, equating to systemic epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007; Grasswick, 2017; Pitts, 2017) by excluding GS perspectives and approaches that would otherwise advance science (Thorp, 2023). This effect is particularly poignant for biogeographic research because most of the world's remaining biodiversity is situated in GS countries, and hence contributions from the GS are of special importance to combat the ongoing global biodiversity crisis.…”

Section: A Perspective From the Global Southmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder research equity and careers

Williams,

Taylor,

Tolley

et al. 2023

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: A Perspective From the Global Southmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder research equity and careers

Williams,

Taylor,

Tolley

et al. 2023

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We situate the work described here in a long history of effort to build public knowledge infrastructure involving diverse stakeholders, 10 aware of ways in which historically entrenched social and racial hierarchies trouble the democratizing promise of such infrastructure. The work must therefore involve active push-back against knowledge imperialism, epistemic exclusion, and cooptive modes of collaboration—within and among universities, and in their relationships beyond their borders (Alatas, 2000; Bhambra et al, 2018; Bhargava, 2013; Biesta, 2007; Cervone, 2015; Fricker, 2017; Harney and Moten, 2013; Ogone, 2017; Paasi, 2015; Pitts, 2017). There are shoulders to stand on, organizational models to borrow and tactics to be exchanged.…”

Section: Work Behind and Aheadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge infrastructure and research agendas for quotidian Anthropocenes: Critical localism with planetary scope

Fortun

Adams

Schütz

et al. 2021

The Anthropocene Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Anthropocene requires the development of new forms of knowledge and supporting sociotechnical infrastructure. While there have been calls for both interdisciplinary and community-engaged approaches, there remains a need to develop, test, and sustain modes of Anthropocene knowledge production that effectively link people working at different scales, in different sites, with many different types of expertise. In this Perspectives piece, we describe one such approach to Anthropocene knowledge production, centered in short-term Field Campuses that bring together community actors in cultural institutions, media, and government agencies with external academic researchers, bringing cultural analysis into the work of characterizing and responding to the Anthropocene. We argue that it is important to build public knowledge infrastructure that allows people to visualize and address many intersecting scales and systems (ecological, atmospheric, economic, technological, social, cultural, etc.) that shape the Anthropocene at the local level.

show abstract

“…The meaning of democratising knowledge is investigated in a variety of approaches (Biesta, 2007;Canagarajah, 2002;Dewey, [1927Dewey, [ ] 2012Freire, [1970Freire, [ ] 2017Fuller, 2013;Ogone, 2017;Paasi, 2015;Pitts, 2017). It can be understood as the ways in which knowledge contributes to processes of democratisation and, in dialogue with this, how no individual shall be excluded from being able to know.…”

Section: A Democratisation Of Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

The Democratisation Myth

Knöchelmann

2021

S&TS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access (OA) in the Global North is considered to solve an accessibility problem in scholarly communication. But this accessibility is restricted to the consumption of knowledge. Epistemic injustices inhering in the scholarly communication of a global production of knowledge remain unchanged. This underscores that the commercial or big deal OA dominating Europe and North America have little revolutionary potential to democratise knowledge. Academia in the Global North, driven by politics of progressive neoliberalism, can even reinforce its hegemonic power by solidifying and legitimating contemporary hierarchies of scholarly communication through OA. In a critique of the notion of a democratisation of knowledge, I showcase manifestations of OA as either allowing consumption of existing discourse or as active participation of discourse in the making. The latter comes closer to being the basis for a democratisation of knowledge. I discuss this as I issue a threefold conceptualisation of epistemic injustices comprising of testimonial injustice, hermeneutical injustice, and epistemic objectification. As these injustices prevail, the notion of a democratisation of knowledge through OA is but another form of technological determinism that neglects the intricacies of culture and hegemony.

show abstract

Decolonial Praxis and Epistemic Injustice

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder research equity and careers

Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder research equity and careers

Knowledge infrastructure and research agendas for quotidian Anthropocenes: Critical localism with planetary scope

The Democratisation Myth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About