The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Typecasts, Tokens, and Spokespersons: A Case for Credibility Excess as Testimonial Injustice
Abstract
Miranda Fricker maintains that testimonial injustice is a matter of credibility deficit, not excess. In this article, I argue that this restricted characterization of testimonial injustice is too narrow. I introduce a type of identity‐prejudicial credibility excess that harms its targets qua knowers and transmitters of knowledge. I show how positive stereotyping and prejudicially inflated credibility assessments contribute to the continued epistemic oppression of marginalized knowers. In particular, I examine harms such as typecasting, compulsory representation, and epistemic exploitation and consider what hearers are obligated to do in response to these injustices. I argue that because epistemic harms to marginalized knowers also arise from prejudicially inflated assessments of their credibility, the virtue of testimonial justice must be revised to remedy them.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing
Fricker, M. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001 · Cited by 9,198
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491 · Cited by 5,202
Stereotype Threat and Women's Math Performance
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373 · Cited by 3,435
Heilman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 · Cited by 2,482
Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing
Dotson, K. (2011) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x · Cited by 2,150
A Cautionary Tale: On Limiting Epistemic Oppression
Dotson, K. (2012) · Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies · doi:10.1353/fro.2012.a472779 · Cited by 874
Whistling Vivaldi: and other clues to how stereotypes affect us
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-0574 · Cited by 555
Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.001 · Cited by 353
Cited by
Berenstain, N. (2016) · Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0003.022 · Cited by 412
Epistemic Agency Under Oppression
Pohlhaus, G. (2020) · Philosophical Papers · doi:10.1080/05568641.2020.1780149 · Cited by 115
‘Isn’t Everyone a Little OCD?’ The Epistemic Harms of Wrongful Depathologization
Spencer, L., & Carel, H. (2021) · Philosophy of Medicine · doi:10.5195/philmed.2021.19 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, E.
- Venue
- Hypatia
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 485-501
- ISSN
- 0887-5367 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-2001
- OpenAlex
- W2395586706
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 16.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Typecasts, Tokens, and Spokespersons: A Case for Credibility Excess as Testimonial Injustice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/hypa.12251
- The paper
- Davis, E. (2016). Typecasts, Tokens, and Spokespersons: A Case for Credibility Excess as Testimonial Injustice. Hypatia. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12251
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
