未知领域:探索未知知识遏制学术界的残疾歧视

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Alice Schippers, Mark Koning, Leo Cardinaal
{"title":"未知领域:探索未知知识遏制学术界的残疾歧视","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

语言可以反映偏见:对许多人来说,“智力”残疾意味着你不能成为学术知识的创造者;“学习”障碍意味着你的教育将受到阻碍。就像语言定义一样,学术实践也会反映出社会偏见。关于知识和知识生产的社会公正被称为认知不公正,它导致了非传统知识者(如智力或学习障碍者)被排除在学术界和高等教育之外(而不是作为研究对象)。本文将通过认知正义的视角讨论学术实践,并探讨包容性研究和教育实践的潜力。我们将简要描述主要的认识方式(例如,抽象的,口头的),并在探索实际的,隐性的,具体化的和情感的认识方式中反对这些做法。为了使智障人士能够在学术界获得“真正的”知识者的认可,我们需要包括不同类型的知识,并使学术实践能够包容智障人士。通过集中和正确解释替代知识,包容性实践可以支持从研究和教育中的主导知识生产方式的范式转变。智障学者的经历似乎证实了不同认知方式的价值。根据这些经验,我们将讨论关系自主、集体拥有和适应性知识以及学习环境的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uncharted Territory: Delving into Unexplored Knowledge to Curb Ableism in Academia

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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