…And (epistemic) justice for all: a cautionary tale of knowledge inequality in participatory research

IF 0.8 Q4 GERONTOLOGY
Andrew Fletcher
{"title":"…And (epistemic) justice for all: a cautionary tale of knowledge inequality in participatory research","authors":"Andrew Fletcher","doi":"10.1108/qaoa-03-2023-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nSignificant funding has been made available in the UK for social, behavioural and design research that aims to improve health and wellbeing for older adults. The growing importance and use of participatory and co-creative approaches in this field not only reflects a general turn in social research but also seeks to redress power imbalances between researchers and researched. This paper aims to use Miranda Fricker’s concept of “epistemic injustice” as a lens to describe the author’s experience with one such project, and highlight the cautions and considerations that must be made when navigating, handling and amalgamating “other people’s knowledge”.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nPersonal and theoretical reflection. Primary data for this paper consists of first-hand insider observations on how different forms of knowledge were treated in an interdisciplinary, intersectoral participatory research context.\n\n\nFindings\nSome participatory studies are hampered by insufficient consideration for a range of ways of thinking, including between researchers and participants, younger and older adults, different academic disciplines or academia and industry. This can harm project integrity and outcomes, potentially eroding trust in academic research.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nBy reflecting on a recent participatory study in healthy ageing, this paper outlines a theoretical basis to increase the benefits of working with different stakeholders across health and care, design, business and academia. It concludes by suggesting ways that researchers might address epistemic injustice, and so recognise and properly value the range of knowledge types encountered in participatory research.\n","PeriodicalId":44916,"journal":{"name":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qaoa-03-2023-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Significant funding has been made available in the UK for social, behavioural and design research that aims to improve health and wellbeing for older adults. The growing importance and use of participatory and co-creative approaches in this field not only reflects a general turn in social research but also seeks to redress power imbalances between researchers and researched. This paper aims to use Miranda Fricker’s concept of “epistemic injustice” as a lens to describe the author’s experience with one such project, and highlight the cautions and considerations that must be made when navigating, handling and amalgamating “other people’s knowledge”. Design/methodology/approach Personal and theoretical reflection. Primary data for this paper consists of first-hand insider observations on how different forms of knowledge were treated in an interdisciplinary, intersectoral participatory research context. Findings Some participatory studies are hampered by insufficient consideration for a range of ways of thinking, including between researchers and participants, younger and older adults, different academic disciplines or academia and industry. This can harm project integrity and outcomes, potentially eroding trust in academic research. Originality/value By reflecting on a recent participatory study in healthy ageing, this paper outlines a theoretical basis to increase the benefits of working with different stakeholders across health and care, design, business and academia. It concludes by suggesting ways that researchers might address epistemic injustice, and so recognise and properly value the range of knowledge types encountered in participatory research.
……以及所有人的(认知)正义:参与式研究中知识不平等的警示故事
目的英国为社会、行为和设计研究提供了大量资金,旨在改善老年人的健康和福祉。参与性和共同创造方法在这一领域日益增长的重要性和使用不仅反映了社会研究的总体转向,而且还寻求纠正研究人员和被研究对象之间的权力不平衡。本文旨在以米兰达·弗里克(Miranda Fricker)的“认知不公”(epistemic injustice)概念为视角,描述作者在这样一个项目中的经历,并强调在导航、处理和整合“他人的知识”时必须注意的事项和考虑因素。设计/方法/方法个人和理论反思。本文的主要数据包括第一手的内部观察,关于如何在跨学科、跨部门的参与性研究背景下对待不同形式的知识。一些参与性研究由于没有充分考虑到研究人员和参与者、年轻人和老年人、不同学科或学术界和工业界之间的一系列思维方式而受到阻碍。这可能会损害项目的完整性和结果,潜在地侵蚀对学术研究的信任。原创性/价值通过反思最近一项关于健康老龄化的参与性研究,本文概述了一个理论基础,以增加与健康和护理、设计、商业和学术界不同利益相关者合作的好处。最后,它提出了研究人员可能解决认知不公正的方法,从而认识并适当地评价参与性研究中遇到的知识类型的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
6.70%
发文量
17
×
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