Epistemic appropriation and the ethics of engaging with trans community knowledge in the context of mental healthcare research.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1186/s13010-024-00157-9
Francis Myerscough, Lydia Schneider-Reuter, Mirjam Faissner
{"title":"Epistemic appropriation and the ethics of engaging with trans community knowledge in the context of mental healthcare research.","authors":"Francis Myerscough, Lydia Schneider-Reuter, Mirjam Faissner","doi":"10.1186/s13010-024-00157-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mental healthcare research increasingly focuses the needs of trans people and, in doing so, acknowledges knowledge and epistemic resources developed in trans communities. In this article, we aim to raise awareness of an ethical issue described by Emmalon Davis that may arise in the context of engaging with community knowledge and epistemic resources: the risk of epistemic appropriation. It is composed of two harms (1) a detachment of epistemic resources developed in the originating community and (2) a misdirection of these epistemic resources for epistemic goals of a dominant community. In this article, we map and discuss the ethical concerns in using knowledge originating in trans communities in terms of epistemic appropriation in the context of mental healthcare research. We first argue that misgendering, failing to reference non-academic sources and a lack of attribution in community authorship are forms of epistemic detachment. Second, we problematize cases of epistemic misdirection of trans epistemic resources, focusing on the examples of detransition and transition regret. We discuss harms related to epistemic appropriation in relationship to risks to safety. The article aims to raise awareness about the risk of epistemic appropriation both in researchers engaging with trans knowledge as well as in mental healthcare workers who seek information on trans.</p>","PeriodicalId":56062,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11110439/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-024-00157-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mental healthcare research increasingly focuses the needs of trans people and, in doing so, acknowledges knowledge and epistemic resources developed in trans communities. In this article, we aim to raise awareness of an ethical issue described by Emmalon Davis that may arise in the context of engaging with community knowledge and epistemic resources: the risk of epistemic appropriation. It is composed of two harms (1) a detachment of epistemic resources developed in the originating community and (2) a misdirection of these epistemic resources for epistemic goals of a dominant community. In this article, we map and discuss the ethical concerns in using knowledge originating in trans communities in terms of epistemic appropriation in the context of mental healthcare research. We first argue that misgendering, failing to reference non-academic sources and a lack of attribution in community authorship are forms of epistemic detachment. Second, we problematize cases of epistemic misdirection of trans epistemic resources, focusing on the examples of detransition and transition regret. We discuss harms related to epistemic appropriation in relationship to risks to safety. The article aims to raise awareness about the risk of epistemic appropriation both in researchers engaging with trans knowledge as well as in mental healthcare workers who seek information on trans.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精神保健研究中的认识论挪用和变性社区知识的伦理。
心理保健研究越来越关注变性人的需求,并在此过程中承认变性社区开发的知识和认识资源。在本文中,我们旨在提高人们对艾玛隆-戴维斯(Emmalon Davis)所描述的一个伦理问题的认识,该问题可能会在利用社区知识和认识资源的过程中出现:认识挪用风险。它包括两种危害:(1) 脱离起源社区开发的认识论资源;(2) 将这些认识论资源错误地用于主导社区的认识论目标。在本文中,我们从认识论挪用的角度,描绘并讨论了在心理保健研究中使用源自变性社群的知识所涉及的伦理问题。首先,我们认为,误用性别、未引用非学术来源以及社区作者缺乏归属感都是认识论脱离的形式。其次,我们对反式认识资源的认识论误导案例进行了分析,重点讨论了脱离和过渡遗憾的例子。我们从安全风险的角度讨论了与认识论挪用相关的危害。文章旨在提高参与跨性别知识研究的研究人员以及寻求跨性别信息的心理保健工作者对认识论挪用风险的认识。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine considers articles on the philosophy of medicine and biology, and on ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of the philosophy of medicine and biology, and the ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. It also considers papers at the intersection of medicine and humanities, including the history of medicine, that are relevant to contemporary philosophy of medicine and bioethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is the official publication of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center.
期刊最新文献
Assessing attitudes toward research and plagiarism among medical students: a multi-site study. Ordinary defensive medicine: in the shadows of general practitioners' postures toward (over-)medicalisation. Intersectionality and discriminatory practices within mentalhealth care. The modern-day "Rest Cure": "The yellow Wallpaper" and underrepresentation in clinical research. Epistemic appropriation and the ethics of engaging with trans community knowledge in the context of mental healthcare research.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1