CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Feminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesGame Theory and Voting SystemsGame Theory and Applications

Epistemic network injustice

Open access
Spiekermann, Kai·2020·Politics, Philosophy & Economics
DOI 10.1177/1470594x19872505
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To find out what is in one’s own best interest, it is helpful to ask one’s epistemic peers. However, identifying one’s epistemic peers is not a trivial task. I consider a stylized political setting, an electoral competition of ‘Masses’ and ‘Elites’. To succeed, the Masses need to know which alternative on offer is truly in their interest. To find out, the Masses can pool their privately held information in a pre-election ballot, provided that they can reliably find out with whom they should pool information. I investigate the process of finding the relevant peer group for information pooling by modelling this group formation process as dynamic network change. The simulations show that the Masses can succeed in finding the right peers, but they also suggest reasons why the Elites may often be more successful. This phenomenon generalizes to the notion of Epistemic Network Injustice. Such injustice arises when a subset of citizens is systematically deprived of connections to helpful epistemic peers, leading to their reduced political influence. Epistemic Network Injustice is a new form of epistemic injustice, related to but distinct from the notion introduced by Miranda Fricker.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1470594x19872505

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Dietrich, F. and Spiekermann, K. (forthcoming). Jury theorems. In Fricker, M., Graham, P. J., Henderson, D., Pedersen, N., and Wyatt, J., editors, The Routledge Companion to Social Epistemology . Routledge.
  2. Haslanger, S. (2017). Culture and Critique. Proceedings, of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary volume , pages 1-22.
  3. List, C. and Spiekermann, K. (2016). Core Voter Knowledge and the Condorcet Jury Theorem. In Kornblith, H. and McLaughlin, B. P., editors, Goldman and His Critics , pages 219-233. Wiley.
  4. Miller, N. R. (1986). Information, Electorates, and Democracy: Some Extentions and Interpretations of the Condorcet Jury Theorem. In Grofman, B. and Owen, G., editors, Information Pooling and Group Decision Making , pages 173-192. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.
  5. Stanley, J. (2017). How propaganda works . Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey and Oxford.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Spiekermann, K.
Affiliations
London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Corresponding author
Spiekermann, Kai
ORCID
Spiekermann, Kai
Venue
Politics, Philosophy & Economics
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-09-19
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
83-101
ISSN
  • 1470-594X (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3060
DOI
10.1177/1470594x19872505
OpenAlex
W4246342425
Cited by
25
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Politics Philosophy & Economics (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
Keywords
epistemic injustice, information pooling, dynamic network formation, epistemic democracy, electoral competition, elite and masses, Miranda Fricker

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