Speaking of Epistemic Injustice: A Reply

IF 0.9 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Human Rights Practice Pub Date : 2023-06-24 DOI:10.1093/jhuman/huad019
M. Hopman, Guleid Ahmed Jama, O. Zvonareva, Artūrs Hoļavins
{"title":"Speaking of Epistemic Injustice: A Reply","authors":"M. Hopman, Guleid Ahmed Jama, O. Zvonareva, Artūrs Hoļavins","doi":"10.1093/jhuman/huad019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this article, we reply to ‘Ethics and Epistemic Injustice in the Global South’ (Kaur et al. 2023), a response to the original article ‘Covert Qualitative Research as a Method to Study Human Rights Under Authoritarian Regimes’ (Hopman 2022). Our reply is written by authors who have expertise and direct experience with the issues at stake (authoritarianism, Global North/Global South relations, covert research methods, epistemic injustice). We show that while there are some interesting points raised in the response article, in general, it does not do justice to the arguments presented in the original article. Instead it constructs a ‘straw man’ by misrepresenting claims in the original article, attributing to it assumptions that were not there, and lumping together notions such as authoritarian zones and Global South, that were not equated in the original article. After providing arguments for this position and discussing the main topics of the critique, we present two new elements: first, a contribution by someone from Moroccan controlled Western Sahara (MCWS), who experienced covert research as a research participant. Second, an overview of lessons learned from this exchange. These include: 1) instead of authoritarian zones, ‘authoritarian situations’ is a more appropriate concept; 2) projects using covert research should strive to include overt and participatory elements; 3) a response article alleging epistemic injustice should create space for the people concerned to speak for themselves.","PeriodicalId":45407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, we reply to ‘Ethics and Epistemic Injustice in the Global South’ (Kaur et al. 2023), a response to the original article ‘Covert Qualitative Research as a Method to Study Human Rights Under Authoritarian Regimes’ (Hopman 2022). Our reply is written by authors who have expertise and direct experience with the issues at stake (authoritarianism, Global North/Global South relations, covert research methods, epistemic injustice). We show that while there are some interesting points raised in the response article, in general, it does not do justice to the arguments presented in the original article. Instead it constructs a ‘straw man’ by misrepresenting claims in the original article, attributing to it assumptions that were not there, and lumping together notions such as authoritarian zones and Global South, that were not equated in the original article. After providing arguments for this position and discussing the main topics of the critique, we present two new elements: first, a contribution by someone from Moroccan controlled Western Sahara (MCWS), who experienced covert research as a research participant. Second, an overview of lessons learned from this exchange. These include: 1) instead of authoritarian zones, ‘authoritarian situations’ is a more appropriate concept; 2) projects using covert research should strive to include overt and participatory elements; 3) a response article alleging epistemic injustice should create space for the people concerned to speak for themselves.
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
说到认识上的不公正:一个回答
在本文中,我们对“全球南方的伦理和认知不公正”(Kaur等人,2023年)做出了回应,这是对原始文章“隐蔽定性研究作为一种研究威权政权下人权的方法”(Hopman 2022年)的回应。我们的回复是由对利害关系问题(威权主义、全球南北关系、隐蔽研究方法、认识不公正)具有专业知识和直接经验的作者撰写的。我们表明,虽然在回应文章中提出了一些有趣的观点,但总的来说,它并没有公正地对待原始文章中提出的论点。相反,它编造了一个“稻草人”,歪曲了原文章中的主张,将不存在的假设归于它,并将原文章中没有等同的概念混为一谈,如威权地区和全球南方。在为这一立场提供论据并讨论了批评的主要主题之后,我们提出了两个新元素:首先,来自摩洛哥控制的西撒哈拉(MCWS)的人的贡献,他作为研究参与者经历了秘密研究。第二,概述从这次交流中吸取的教训。这包括:1)“威权情境”是一个更合适的概念,而不是威权区域;2)使用隐蔽研究的项目应努力包括公开的和参与性的因素;3)一篇声称认知不公的回应文章应该为相关人士创造空间,让他们为自己说话。
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
80
期刊最新文献
Administrative Lawfare at the European Union’s External Borders: Some Perspectives on Administrative Regulation of NGO Search and Rescue Activities in Italy and the Situation at the Polish-Belarusian Border Specificity in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights A Jurisdictional Vertigo: Compulsory Arbitration, Sports and the European Court of Human Rights Forced Marriages in Times of Armed Conflict: An Implicit Paradox of Modern Slavery under International Humanitarian Law The Politics of Ambiguous Loss: Missing Persons and Social Ecologies after Armed Conflict
×
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