Uncharted Territory: Delving into Unexplored Knowledge to Curb Ableism in Academia

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Alice Schippers, Mark Koning, Leo Cardinaal
{"title":"Uncharted Territory: Delving into Unexplored Knowledge to Curb Ableism in Academia","authors":"Alice Schippers,&nbsp;Mark Koning,&nbsp;Leo Cardinaal","doi":"10.1111/bld.12627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Language can reflect bias: an ‘intellectual’ disability means for many people that you cannot be an academic knowledge producer; a ‘learning’ disability means that your education will be hampered. Like language definitions, academic practices can reflect societal biases. The social (in)justice regarding knowledge and knowledge production is called epistemic injustice, and it has resulted in exclusion of nonconventional knowers, such as persons with intellectual or learning disabilities, from academia and higher education (other than as objects of research).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This paper will discuss academic practices through the lens of epistemic (in)justice and look at the potential of inclusive research and educational practices therein. We will briefly describe dominant ways of knowing (e.g., abstract, verbal), and counter these practices in exploring practical, tacit, embodied and affective ways of knowing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>For people with intellectual disabilities to be able to gain recognition as ‘real’ knowers within academia, we need to include diverse types of knowing and enable academic practices to be inclusive of people with intellectual disabilities. Inclusive practices can support a paradigm shift away from dominant ways of knowledge production in research and education, by centralising and correctly interpreting alternate knowledge. Experiences of scholars with intellectual disabilities appear to confirm the value of different ways of knowing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Drawing from these experiences, we will discuss the importance of relational autonomy, collectively owned and adaptive knowledge, and the learning context.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47232,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"53 1","pages":"211-220"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bld.12627","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bld.12627","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Language can reflect bias: an ‘intellectual’ disability means for many people that you cannot be an academic knowledge producer; a ‘learning’ disability means that your education will be hampered. Like language definitions, academic practices can reflect societal biases. The social (in)justice regarding knowledge and knowledge production is called epistemic injustice, and it has resulted in exclusion of nonconventional knowers, such as persons with intellectual or learning disabilities, from academia and higher education (other than as objects of research).

Methods

This paper will discuss academic practices through the lens of epistemic (in)justice and look at the potential of inclusive research and educational practices therein. We will briefly describe dominant ways of knowing (e.g., abstract, verbal), and counter these practices in exploring practical, tacit, embodied and affective ways of knowing.

Findings

For people with intellectual disabilities to be able to gain recognition as ‘real’ knowers within academia, we need to include diverse types of knowing and enable academic practices to be inclusive of people with intellectual disabilities. Inclusive practices can support a paradigm shift away from dominant ways of knowledge production in research and education, by centralising and correctly interpreting alternate knowledge. Experiences of scholars with intellectual disabilities appear to confirm the value of different ways of knowing.

Conclusions

Drawing from these experiences, we will discuss the importance of relational autonomy, collectively owned and adaptive knowledge, and the learning context.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Learning Disabilities is an interdisciplinary international peer-reviewed journal which aims to be the leading journal in the learning disability field. It is the official Journal of the British Institute of Learning Disabilities. It encompasses contemporary debate/s and developments in research, policy and practice that are relevant to the field of learning disabilities. It publishes original refereed papers, regular special issues giving comprehensive coverage to specific subject areas, and especially commissioned keynote reviews on major topics. In addition, there are reviews of books and training materials, and a letters section. The focus of the journal is on practical issues, with current debates and research reports. Topics covered could include, but not be limited to: Current trends in residential and day-care service Inclusion, rehabilitation and quality of life Education and training Historical and inclusive pieces [particularly welcomed are those co-written with people with learning disabilities] Therapies Mental health issues Employment and occupation Recreation and leisure; Ethical issues, advocacy and rights Family and carers Health issues Adoption and fostering Causation and management of specific syndromes Staff training New technology Policy critique and impact.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信