Interrogate Voice, Credibility and Testimony When Studying Inequality in Education¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 theoretical), q1 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The article's four suggestions for further research. Inequality literature "can communicate forms of epistemic injustice" through guiding questions such as "Who has voice and who doesn’t?"; it should build a responsive approach to testimony, credibility and recognition; it "should question and problematize the structural inequalities in society"; and education literature should problematize its own epistemic practices and the credibility of the knowledge institutions it references.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Raising the guiding questions the article lists: who has voice, whether voices interact with equal agency and power, in whose terms they communicate, who is understood, who is believed, and who is acknowledged and engaged with
• Asking how to understand the institutions of knowledge referenced by educational studies and how to address the structural causes of those resources' credibility

Constraints¶

• These are offered as suggestions for further research, not as tested interventions

Target Learners¶

• Education researchers and practitioners examining social and cultural inequalities in school settings

Target Learning Objectives¶

• Identifying the epistemic agency and authority of actors in a school setting when studying inequality

Claims¶

• Cultural Processes And Epistemic Injustice Explain Educational Inequality [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Evaluate student-voice initiatives with a framework of key questions on institutional conditions

Related Principles¶

• Epistemic Injustice
• Listen_To_The_Voices_Of_Students
• Adopt humanistic and radical approaches so adult learners develop as individuals and can question social injustice

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Göktürk, D. (2021). Epistemic Injustice and Cultural Processes in Education. Kastamonu Education Journal, 29(1), 218-227. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.732138