Fact Construction and Categorization in Assessment: Cultivating Epistemic Justice and Resistance in Social Work Assessment

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL WORK
Eunjung Lee
{"title":"Fact Construction and Categorization in Assessment: Cultivating Epistemic Justice and Resistance in Social Work Assessment","authors":"Eunjung Lee","doi":"10.1086/721273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When an individual’s experience is discredited and their views silenced in conversation, epistemic injustice ensues, resulting in an ontological attack on the individual’s human dignity. I examine how social workers claim to know and construct the facts of clients’ experiences, subsequently categorizing them in accordance with professional and institutional knowledge. These constructs may differ from the clients’ own experiences, perpetuating epistemic injustice. Elaborating a process of fact construction and categorization in two case examples, I interrogate the inevitable workings of power at multiple levels during assessment. I argue categorization as a site of epistemic injustice serving three functions: permitting dominant discourses to be taken-for-granted and to legitimize professional actions, framing interactional tasks to align with professional and institutional agendas, and enticing clients and workers with activity-bound accountability, obligation, and entitlement. This analysis invites social workers to reflect critically on how to resist epistemic and social injustice in everyday assessment.","PeriodicalId":47665,"journal":{"name":"Social Service Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Service Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721273","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

When an individual’s experience is discredited and their views silenced in conversation, epistemic injustice ensues, resulting in an ontological attack on the individual’s human dignity. I examine how social workers claim to know and construct the facts of clients’ experiences, subsequently categorizing them in accordance with professional and institutional knowledge. These constructs may differ from the clients’ own experiences, perpetuating epistemic injustice. Elaborating a process of fact construction and categorization in two case examples, I interrogate the inevitable workings of power at multiple levels during assessment. I argue categorization as a site of epistemic injustice serving three functions: permitting dominant discourses to be taken-for-granted and to legitimize professional actions, framing interactional tasks to align with professional and institutional agendas, and enticing clients and workers with activity-bound accountability, obligation, and entitlement. This analysis invites social workers to reflect critically on how to resist epistemic and social injustice in everyday assessment.
评估中的事实建构与分类:培养社会工作评估中的认识公正与阻力
当一个人的经验被怀疑,他们的观点在谈话中被沉默,认知上的不公正就会随之而来,导致对个人人性尊严的本体论攻击。我研究了社会工作者如何声称了解和构建客户经历的事实,然后根据专业和制度知识对它们进行分类。这些结构可能不同于客户自己的经验,使认知不公正永久化。在两个案例中,我详细阐述了事实构建和分类的过程,在评估过程中,我询问了权力在多个层面上不可避免的运作。我认为,分类是认知不公正的一个场所,有三个功能:允许主导话语被视为理所当然,并使专业行为合法化,构建互动任务以与专业和机构议程保持一致,并以活动约束的问责制、义务和权利吸引客户和工人。这一分析促使社会工作者批判性地反思如何在日常评估中抵制认知和社会不公正。
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
Social Service Review
Social Service Review SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Founded in 1927, Social Service Review is devoted to the publication of thought-provoking, original research on social welfare policy, organization, and practice. Articles in the Review analyze issues from the points of view of various disciplines, theories, and methodological traditions, view critical problems in context, and carefully consider long-range solutions. The Review features balanced, scholarly contributions from social work and social welfare scholars, as well as from members of the various allied disciplines engaged in research on human behavior, social systems, history, public policy, and social services.
×
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