Conceptual competence injustice

Anderson, Derek Egan

doi:10.1080/02691728.2016.1241320

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When shared modes of interpretation (such as concepts, ideas and narratives) are absent or not fairly accessible, these individuals are deprived of the capacity to use and develop the shared descriptive labels necessary for mutual understanding of the phenomena they experience [9]. In recent years many theorists have expanded on the theory of epistemic injustice [12][13][14]. One such elaboration of relevance for the present analysis is the concept of participantbased injustice [13].…”

Section: Epistemic Injusticementioning

confidence: 99%

The Legitimacy of User Knowledge in Decision-Making Processes in Mental Health Care: An Analysis of Epistemic Injustice

Grim

Tistad

Schön

et al. 2019

J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. Ment. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experience-based knowledge of users is considered to provide vital input in shared decision making (SDM). However, mental health service users frequently express having negative experiences from meetings with providers, which are of an epistemic nature (e.g., being ignored or not regarded as credible). This study aimed to explore the barriers involved in legitimizing user knowledge in decision-making processes. Interview data from service users and providers were viewed from a theoretic framework of epistemic injustice. Abductive content analysis was conducted on data collected during a project to develop and implement SDM in mental health services. In describing obstacles to legitimize user knowledge, service users highlighted relational issues: being dependent, often dismissed and choosing to edit their testimonies. Service providers typically described workflow issues, users' insufficient decision-making competence and users' vulnerability to stress factors. The findings suggest that greater epistemic justice might be achieved by a SDM process in which the service user is engaged as a full partner in collaboration in various activities related to their care.

show abstract

Section: Epistemic Injusticementioning

confidence: 99%

The Legitimacy of User Knowledge in Decision-Making Processes in Mental Health Care: An Analysis of Epistemic Injustice

Grim

Tistad

Schön

et al. 2019

J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. Ment. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meanwhile, one might think that dismissive incomprehension is also regularly used to undermine the hermeneutic resources of marginalised epistemic communities, or to perpetuate conceptual competence injustice 'in which a member of a marginalised group is unjustly regarded as lacking conceptual or linguistic competence as a consequence of structural oppression' (Anderson 2017). These kinds of epistemic oppression (see Dotson 2014) seem like obvious results of dismissive incomprehension in cases of oppressive power relations.…”

Section: Relationship To Epistemic Injusticesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dismissive Incomprehension: A Use of Purported Ignorance to Undermine Others

Cull

2019

Social Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses a particular social phenomenon whereby a speaker purports ignorance of the meaning of another speaker's speech in order to undermine that other speaker: dismissive incomprehension. It develops a speech act theory of the phenomenon, and develops its distinctive, and sometimes problematic perlocutionary character. After taking a look at some of the issues surrounding the phenomenon, the paper compares it to more fully studied features of our social lives, including epistemic injustice and gaslighting. It ends with some thoughts on counteracting the problematic cases of dismissive incomprehension.

show abstract

“…Finally, Anderson (2017a) has quite recently identified conceptual competence injustice, which is perpetrated when someone is not recognised as a knower or expert in some domain because of misuse or lack of specialised vocabulary, and is attributed lack of the corresponding concepts. It is "[…] a wrong done to a person specifically in their capacity as a knower of those claims that would traditionally be regarded as conceptual and linguistic truths" (Anderson 2017a, 1).…”

Section: (Mis)attributions Of Pragmatic (In)competence and Epistemic mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, undue attributions of a low level of competence after a comprehension mistake could be considered a conceptual competence injustice if the problem is a hearer's lexical and conceptual repertoires, and these hinder understanding. Although this injustice is perpetrated when speakers exhibit ignorance of vocabulary (Anderson 2017a), it would be reasonable to argue that it may also be targeted at hearers who experience comprehension troubles due to lexical and conceptual gaps. Imagine a professor using the relevance-theoretic term 'explicature', already introduced in class, during an explanation: (13) Reference assignment, disambiguation, conceptual adjustment and recovery of elided material are necessary to construct an explicature.…”

Section: (Mis)attributions Of Pragmatic (In)competence and Epistemic mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pragmatic Competence Injustice

Cruz

2018

Social Epistemology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When engaging in verbal communication, we do not simply use language to dispense information, but also to perform a plethora of actions, some of which depend on conventionalised, recurrent linguistic structures. Additionally, we must be skilled enough to arrive at the speaker's intended meaning. However, speakers' performance may deviate from certain habits and expectations concerning the way(s) of speaking or accomplishing actions, while various factors may hinder comprehension, which may give rise to misappraisals of their respective abilities and capacities as competent language users. This paper discusses whether such misappraisals may be subsumed by any of the already identified types of epistemic injustice and proposes a new label for them. It also describes the consequences of those misappraisals and approaches their origins from a cognitive perspective.

show abstract

Conceptual competence injustice

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

The Legitimacy of User Knowledge in Decision-Making Processes in Mental Health Care: An Analysis of Epistemic Injustice

The Legitimacy of User Knowledge in Decision-Making Processes in Mental Health Care: An Analysis of Epistemic Injustice

Dismissive Incomprehension: A Use of Purported Ignorance to Undermine Others

Pragmatic Competence Injustice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About