CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Feminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesDisability Rights and RepresentationEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From “She Would Say That, Wouldn't She?” to “Does She Take Sugar?” Epistemic Injustice and Disability

Open access
Scully, Jackie Leach·2018·International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics
DOI 10.3138/ijfab.11.1.106
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Epistemic injustice is the idea that social power ensures that the knowledge of some groups is excluded from the collective epistemic resources. In this paper, I argue that there are distinctive features of disabled life that, because they shape the processes through which knowledge is gathered, evaluated, judged, and disseminated, also influence the ways in which epistemic injustice is experienced by disabled people. These features include the ascription of a global epistemic incapacity to people affected by impairment. Against a background of contemporary political shifts and biotechnology innovation, the implications of epistemic injustice for disabled people are serious.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3138/ijfab.11.1.106

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Campbell Fiona Kumari, 2008, M/C Journal, 11
  2. Dotson Kristie, 2012, Frontiers: A Journal of Women's Studies, 33, 24, 10.5250/fronjwomestud.33.1.0024 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Fricker Miranda, 2006, Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3, 96, 10.1353/epi.0.0004 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2016. Genome Editing: An Ethical Review. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Genome-editing-an-ethical-review.pdf
  5. Savulescu Julian, 2002, BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 325, 771

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 129

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Scully, J. L.
Corresponding author
Scully, Jackie Leach
ORCID
Scully, Jackie Leach
Venue
International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics
Publisher
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
Published
2018-02
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
106-124
ISSN
  • 1937-4577 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-4585
DOI
10.3138/ijfab.11.1.106
OpenAlex
W2793317418
Cited by
128
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
15.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
epistemic injustice, disability, people with disabilities, social power, knowledge production, epistemic exclusion, biotechnology

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