The DOI matches its DataCite record.
From Theory to Practice: A Taxonomic Approach to Epistemic Injustice in Education
Open accessAbstract
The concept of epistemic injustice, characterized by discrimination and exclusion within the epistemic sphere, manifests in various ways depending on the nature of epistemic interactions and the contextual social environment. It is of interest to analyze this phenomenon in the educational context, given the focus on individuals as generators and transmitters of knowledge. While this concept has gained wide recognition and utilization in academic circles, the growing variety of related terms and typologies has led to a certain degree of fragmentation in the field. To address this fragmentation, this study aims to systematize and interconnect these concepts by proposing a comprehensive taxonomy tailored to the educational context. Using meta-analysis and content analysis methods, this research identifies core areas of interest and prominent scholars in the field of epistemic injustice within the educational context. Building upon this foundation, the study formulates a taxonomy encompassing the diverse typologies of epistemic injustice delineated in academic discourse related to the educational context. This effort seeks to facilitate the practical application of these concepts in education and the development of strategies and policies conducive to cultivating more equitable and just environments in contemporary society.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Next to Fricker's two kinds of epistemic injustice, the starting point for a taxonomy that Báez-Vizcaíno [3] provides, identifies other forms epistemic injustice, namely participatory injustice, performative injustice, and the invalidation of epistemic labor.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mollema, W. J. T. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00801-w · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Báez-Vizcaíno, K.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Acción Pro-Educación y Cultura (DO)
- Corresponding author
- Báez-Vizcaíno, Katherine
- Venue
- ALBUS
- Publisher
- ALBUS
- Published
- 2023
- OpenAlex
- W6930070122
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- epistemic injustice, educational context, epistemic exclusion, knowledge production, educational equity, epistemic justice
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