Understanding Epistemic Trust Injustices and Their Harms

Grasswick, Heidi E.

doi:10.1017/s1358246118000553

Cited by 35 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By being distrustful of a research community or epistemic group, members of marginalised groups can become less likely to participate fully in activities of inquiry, 43 and by not participating fully in such activities, can lose the opportunity to redress the conditions that led to epistemic injustice in the first place. 44…”

Section: Practices Associated With Gaze or Audiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic injustice in academic global health

Bhakuni

Abimbola

2021

The Lancet Global Health

192

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Viewpoint calls attention to the pervasive wrongs related to knowledge production, use, and circulation in global health, many of which are taken for granted. We argue that common practices in academic global health (eg, authorship practices, research partnerships, academic writing, editorial practices, sensemaking practices, and the choice of audience or research framing, questions, and methods) are peppered with epistemic wrongs that lead to or exacerbate epistemic injustice. We describe two forms of epistemic wrongs, credibility deficit and interpretive marginalisation, which stem from structural exclusion of marginalised producers and recipients of knowledge. We then illustrate these forms of epistemic wrongs using examples of common practices in academic global health, and show how these wrongs are linked to the pose (or positionality) and the gaze (or audience) of producers of knowledge. The epistemic injustice framework shown in this Viewpoint can help to surface, detect, communicate, make sense of, avoid, and potentially undo unfair knowledge practices in global health that are inflicted upon people in their capacity as knowers, and as producers and recipients of knowledge, owing to structural prejudices in the processes involved in knowledge production, use, and circulation in global health.

show abstract

Section: Practices Associated With Gaze or Audiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic injustice in academic global health

Bhakuni

Abimbola

2021

The Lancet Global Health

192

189

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, given the history of research abuse, like the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Study, African Americans have reasons to be distrustful of medical researchers and doctors. This makes it harder for them to benefit from the information provided to them (Grasswick, 2018). In such cases, bringing about distributive epistemic justice requires taking the necessary steps to enable African Americans to have well-placed trust in medical professionals and medical research.…”

Section: Producing Knowledge People Needmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributive Epistemic Justice in Science

Irzık¹,

Kurtulmuş²

2024

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops an account of distributive epistemic justice in the production of scientific knowledge. We identify four requirements: (a) science should produce the knowledge citizens need in order to reason about the common good, their individual good and pursuit thereof; (b) science should produce the knowledge those serving the public need to pursue justice effectively; (c) science should be organized in such a way that it does not aid the wilful manufacturing of ignorance; and (d) when making decisions about epistemic risks, scientists should make sure that there aren't social groups or weighty interests that are neglected. After discussing these requirements, we examine the relationship between discriminatory and distributive epistemic injustice in science and argue that they often compound each other. * We are grateful to the students in our class, Science and Society, and the referees for this journal for their feedback that improved this paper. We would also like to thank Mert Atessal for his research assistance. Faik Kurtulmus' work was kindly supported by the BAGEP Award of Science Academy, Turkey.

show abstract

“…This concept can be expanded to social position and other systemic differences in society (Ettore, 2017; Fricker, 2013). Broadly speaking, the acknowledgment of where the knower is in space and time will impact the research development and findings (Grasswick, 2018; Harding, 1986; Hartsock, 1987). Situated knowledge can be incorporated into research through the reflexive process by exposing the “hidden ethnography” (Blackman, 2007): by bringing to the fore aspects of the research that previously remained invisible due to fears about legitimacy and researcher bias.…”

Section: Key Concepts: “Coming Out” and Reflexivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“Coming Out”: Stigma, Reflexivity and the Drug Researcher’s Drug Use

Ross

Potter

Barratt

et al. 2020

Contemporary Drug Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some personal experience of illicit drug use undoubtedly exists within the population of academic drug researchers. But it is rarely acknowledged, and even more rarely reflected upon, in their published work. This is understandable: criminal, professional and social sanctions may follow public admission of illicit activities. However, to not “come out” seems contrary to some core academic principles, such as transparency in data collection and reflexivity in the research process. Coming out may present researchers with an opportunity for improving knowledge of, and policies toward, drug use. In this article, we identify reasons for and against the public disclosure of drug use and the impact of such disclosure across a range of spheres, including research, teaching, policy influence and private lives. Reasons against coming out include the risks of undermining professional reputations and hence the ability to contribute to academic and policy debates, the threat of criminal justice sanctions, and impacts on loved ones. However, coming out can have academic benefit (i.e., improving our understanding of drugs, of people who use drugs, and of drug research) and contribute to activist goals (e.g., de-stigmatization of drug use and demarginalization of people who use drugs). Both the risks and benefits of public drug use disclosure have implications for how research and researchers may influence drug policy. Two key themes, stigma and reflexivity, underpin the discussion. We do not conclude with clear recommendations for drug-using drug researchers; to come out or to not come out is a personal decision. However, we argue that there is clear merit to further open discussion on the role of disclosure and reflection on personal drug use experience among those working in drug research and drug policy—where such reflection is relevant and where such researchers feel able to do so.

show abstract

Understanding Epistemic Trust Injustices and Their Harms

Cited by 35 publications

References 23 publications

Epistemic injustice in academic global health

Epistemic injustice in academic global health

Distributive Epistemic Justice in Science

“Coming Out”: Stigma, Reflexivity and the Drug Researcher’s Drug Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About