The Institutional Preconditions of Epistemic Justice

Samaržija, Hana; Cerovac, Ivan

doi:10.1080/02691728.2021.1919238

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 One of the functions of sexual harassment being to "maintain the most highly rewarded forms of work as domains of masculine competence" (Schultz 1998(Schultz , 1755-including work in those professions sustaining the most hermeneutically powerful practices. 14 For further criticisms of Fricker's virtue-based approach to tackling epistemic injustices see: Langton (2010, 462-463), Anderson (2012, 167-168), and Samaržija and Cerovac (2021). For a defense of Fricker's approach see Madva (2019).…”

Section: Respectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tackling Hermeneutical Injustices in Gender-Affirming Healthcare

Clanchy

2024

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previously proposed strategies for tackling hermeneutical injustices take for granted the interests people have in certain things about them being intelligible to them and/or to others, and seek to enable them to satisfy these interests. Strategies of this sort I call interests-as-given strategies. I propose that some hermeneutical injustices can instead be tackled by doing away with certain of these interests, and so with the possibility of their unfair nonsatisfaction. Strategies of this sort I call interests-in-question strategies. As a case study in when such an interests-in-question strategy ought to be pursued, I look at how to tackle hermeneutical injustices arising in the context of gender-affirming healthcare as provided to adults by the National Health Service in the UK. I argue that considerations of trust, privacy, and respect all support pursuing such a strategy. One way to do so, I suggest, would be by replacing the existing gatekeeping model with an informed consent model for the provision of gender-affirming healthcare. Considerations of hermeneutical justice can hence be added to the already-impressive case for undertaking this shift.

show abstract

Section: Respectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tackling Hermeneutical Injustices in Gender-Affirming Healthcare

Clanchy

2024

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the literature on epistemic injustice turns increasingly to the question of countering it, Fricker's (2007) focus on individual epistemic virtue of correcting for credibility deficit, although important, neglects the imperative of embedding epistemic justice as a virtue of social systems and institutions (Anderson, 2019). Thus, to remedy epistemic injustice, we must transform the social environment where these transactions take place, involving fair and equal access to epistemic resources as markers of credibility, providing more democratic platforms for voicing social perspectives and the development of institutional mechanisms for eliminating identity markers from epistemic exchanges (Samaržija and Cerovac, 2021). However, Muzanenhamo and Chowdhury (2021) question if institutional epistemic justice can be achieved when the structure of academia promotes the 'decoupling of functions' and 'diffusion of responsibility', meaning that no specific individual is held accountable for inflicting and/or eliminating epistemic injustice.…”

Section: Structural Epistemic In/justice Within Marketing Academementioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic in/justice: Towards ‘Other’ ways of knowing

Hutton

Cappellini

2022

Marketing Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper brings a critical awareness to the interrelations between epistemic injustice and knowledge hierarchies, through an insufficient attention to the Other as epistemically harmed. Because of the dominant empirical and theoretical authority Others are subjected to in research practices and dissemination, our paper explores how marginalised voices possess less epistemic agency due to their disciplining, neglect and subjugation as knowers through testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. We contribute two new categories of epistemic injustice in marketing; Silencing and Ignorance; areas, which reproduce and reify knowledge hierarchies but equally provide scholars with an opportunity to contest epistemic dominance. Through an explicit acknowledgement of the relationship between difference, power and knowledge in meaning-making, we argue for Other consciousness which entails (i) privileging Othered knowledge, (ii) highlighting structural epistemic in/justice within Marketing academe and (iii) advocating for artistic-inclusive processes, to alter how we theorise knowing Others, and Other knowers, in marketing scholarship.

show abstract

“…Legitimacy has to do with how epistemic power is constrained. To disrupt cycles of hermeneutical domination, epistemic trustworthiness must not only be recognized based on professional education and credentials, but also by avoiding intellectual elitism, acknowledging expertise by lived experience, and attaching epistemic privilege thereto (Samaržija & Cerovac, 2021). For epistemic injustice to be corrected, the legitimacy of governance should become increasingly based particularly on satisfying the need to integrate victims of epistemic injustice into decision‐making processes (Liveriero, 2020); and governance and administration a ccountability should be based not only on performance , and motivated not only by anticipating scrutiny (Overman & Schillemans, 2022) but rather on responding to citizen contestation transparently and demonstrating a commitment to social justice , primarily for those previously victimized by epistemic injustice (Young, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contracting out public participation to external consultants: Observations on epistemic justice

Levin

2022

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen a rapidly growing trend of outsourcing elements of public participation from public institutions to external citizen engagement consultants (CECs). This study examined this phenomenon using the theoretical framework of epistemic in/justice. It is based on a sequential deductive‐inductive analysis of interviews with public administrators, private CECs, and citizens, all involved in participative initiatives in localities across Israel. While previous research on public participation has focused primarily on the dyadic relationship between governing institutions and selected beneficiaries of their services, the findings of the present study enable offering some observations about what happens when this dyad turns into a triad. A critical review of the findings suggests that while outsourcing public participation is often presented using discourses of progress and inclusion, in fact, it may preserve, or even deepen, epistemic injustices, especially for citizens belonging to vulnerable and marginalized communities.

show abstract

The Institutional Preconditions of Epistemic Justice

Cited by 11 publications

References 31 publications

Tackling Hermeneutical Injustices in Gender-Affirming Healthcare

Tackling Hermeneutical Injustices in Gender-Affirming Healthcare

Epistemic in/justice: Towards ‘Other’ ways of knowing

Contracting out public participation to external consultants: Observations on epistemic justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About