Understanding Epistemic Justice through Inclusive Research about Intellectual Disability and Sexuality

Author:

Verbeek Lesley1,Koning Mark23,Schippers Alice3ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Digital Culture, Open University The Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands

2. Philadelphia Care Foundation, 3811 MZ Amersfoort, The Netherlands

3. Disability Studies, University of Humanistic Studies, 3512 HD Utrecht, The Netherlands

Abstract

Formal language: This paper discusses inclusive research and epistemic justice by using an example of a published study the authors conducted on intellectual disability and sexuality in supported living environments. Our study addressed taboos and pushed boundaries in content and methodology through two ways of inclusive research: (1) the second author of this paper who has an intellectual disability was a main researcher in the study; and (2) we interviewed people with intellectual disabilities about their own experiences as well as their desired solutions to obstacles they face in their supported living environments. Their input was centralized in the final research report. This method challenged the epistemic injustice of who have historically not been ‘allowed’ to produce knowledge in research. This paper offers historical insight into epistemic injustice as well as relational approaches from critical disability studies and non-Western understandings of disability that ‘rethink’ disability and that can thus promote epistemic justice in academic theory. By addressing both practice and theory in this paper, we aim to contribute to the growing body of inclusive research and to the epistemic justice of people with intellectual disabilities. Plain language: (1) Epistemology = thinking about knowledge, producing knowledge, sharing knowledge. (2) In history, people with intellectual disabilities have often been excluded from participating in this. This is called epistemic injustice. It is caused by the discrimination of people with intellectual disabilities (ableism). (3) Performing inclusive research with people with intellectual disabilities challenges this. It contributes to epistemic justice. Researchers and interviewees with intellectual disabilities can bring knowledge from lived experience into research. (4) Knowledge from lived experience has not always been valued in traditional research. That means we also need to think differently about ‘knowledge’, and about ‘disability’ and its ‘value’. (5) Discrimination based on disability has a long history. For instance: during colonialism by European countries (starting in the 15th century), false ideas about ‘poor health’ and ‘low intelligence’ were already used to justify slavery. People with disabilities have often been locked away or even killed because they have been seen as ‘less valuable’. These ways of thinking still exist. They influence our understanding of ‘epistemology’ because they decide whose way of thinking and way of life is valuable or not valuable. We need to change this way of thinking. (6) Some academic fields that help are critical disability studies, indigenous studies, and feminist posthumanism. These fields challenge ableist ways of thinking. They can help us understand disability as something that is not negative or less valuable, but simply part of what makes us human.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Reference42 articles.

1. Baig, Fakiha (2024, January 23). Indigenous Women Still Forced, Coerced into Sterilization: Senate Report. Available online: https://globalnews.ca/news/7920118/indigenous-women-sterilization-senate-report/.

2. Barnes, Colin (2002). Disability: A choice of models. Disability, Polity.

3. Bauer-Babef, Clara (2024, January 23). EU Parliament Wants to Ban Forced Sterilisation to Protect People with Disabilities. Available online: https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/eu-parliament-wants-to-ban-forced-sterilisation-to-protect-people-with-disabilities/.

4. Longmore, Paul K., and Umansky, Lauri (2001). Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History. The New Disability History: American Perspectives, New York University Press.

5. Bertens, Roland, and Palamar, Jasmin (2021). Het Nederlandse Zorgbeleid in Historisch Perspectief, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3