Epistemic Injustice¶
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.
Cited by¶
7 citations across 7 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Epistemic Justice
- Epistemic justice is the philosophical category — formalized in Miranda Fricker's Epistemic Injustice (2007)
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Fricker's abstract backs the knower element of epistemic injustice, but not the claim that every articulation has four core components beginning with the knower.
“This book argues that there is a distinctively epistemic genus of injustice, in which someone is wronged specifically in their capacity as a knower, wronged therefore in a capacity essential to human value.”
- Epistemic justice is the philosophical category — formalized in Miranda Fricker's Epistemic Injustice (2007)
Mechanisms¶
- Credibility Audit
- It is the natural place to anchor the concept of testimonial injustice — a knower given less credibility than their account warrants because of who they are.
This sourceDefines testimonial injustice as identity-prejudicially assigning a speaker less credibility than their testimony warrants.
- It is the natural place to anchor the concept of testimonial injustice — a knower given less credibility than their account warrants because of who they are.
- Cultural Diagnosis Interview Protocol
- Hermeneutic Gap Analysis
- It is the direct operationalization of hermeneutical injustice: a gap in shared interpretive resources that leaves a group unable to make sense of, or be understood in, their own experience.
This sourceDefines hermeneutical injustice as a flaw in shared interpretive resources that can prevent someone from making sense of significant social experience.
- It is the direct operationalization of hermeneutical injustice: a gap in shared interpretive resources that leaves a group unable to make sense of, or be understood in, their own experience.
- Stakeholder Exclusion Audit
- It is the operational answer to epistemic injustice, the wrong done when a party's testimony is discounted or their capacity to be heard is structurally denied.
This sourceDefines testimonial injustice as prejudicial credibility deficit and describes epistemic exclusion and silencing that deny participation as a knower.
- It is the operational answer to epistemic injustice, the wrong done when a party's testimony is discounted or their capacity to be heard is structurally denied.
- Stakeholder Meaning Check
- It convenes plural voices precisely where an interpreter's framework is most likely to have excluded the meanings that matter, guarding against the harm of having one's own meaning read over by someone with more authority to be believed.
This sourceExplains how prejudicial gaps in shared interpretive resources can obscure people’s social experience and how unequal credibility can wrong them as knowers.
- It convenes plural voices precisely where an interpreter's framework is most likely to have excluded the meanings that matter, guarding against the harm of having one's own meaning read over by someone with more authority to be believed.
- Taboo-Topic Research Safeguard
- It is the standing guard against turning stigmatized experience into either spectacle or, subtly, epistemic injustice: representing people in categories that erase how they understand their own lives.
This sourceDescribes epistemic injustice as representing people in categories that erase how they understand their own lives.
- It is the standing guard against turning stigmatized experience into either spectacle or, subtly, epistemic injustice: representing people in categories that erase how they understand their own lives.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 7 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:f4e7a3df2aa1 · see in the full table