SSOAR Logo
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • English 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Login
SSOAR ▼
  • Home
  • About SSOAR
  • Guidelines
  • Publishing in SSOAR
  • Cooperating with SSOAR
    • Cooperation models
    • Delivery routes and formats
    • Projects
  • Cooperation partners
    • Information about cooperation partners
  • Information
    • Possibilities of taking the Green Road
    • Grant of Licences
    • Download additional information
  • Operational concept
Browse and search Add new document OAI-PMH interface
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Download PDF
Download full text

(external source)

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad019

Exports for your reference manager

Bibtex export
Endnote export

Display Statistics
Share
  • Share via E-Mail E-Mail
  • Share via Facebook Facebook
  • Share via Bluesky Bluesky
  • Share via Reddit reddit
  • Share via Linkedin LinkedIn
  • Share via XING XING

Speaking of Epistemic Injustice: A Reply

[journal article]

Hopman, Marieke Janne
Jama, Guleid Ahmed
Zvonareva, Olga
Hoļavins, Artūrs

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 d... view more

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.... view less

Classification
Research, Research Organization

Free Keywords
authoritarian situations; covert research; epistemic injustice; Global North; Global South

Document language
English

Publication Year
2023

Page/Pages
p. 374-394

Journal
Journal of Human Rights Practice, 15 (2023) 2

ISSN
1757-9627

Status
Published Version; peer reviewed

Licence
Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.
 

 


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.