Whose Knowledge is Valued?: Epistemic Injustice in CSCW Applications (2407.03477v1)

Abstract: Social computing scholars have long known that people do not interact with knowledge in straightforward ways, especially in digital environments. While policies around knowledge are essential for targeting misinformation, they are value-laden; in choosing how to present information, we undermine non-traditional -- often non-Western -- ways of knowing. Epistemic injustice is the systemic exclusion of certain people and methods from the knowledge canon. Epistemic injustice chips away at one's testimony and vocabulary until they are stripped of their due right to know and understand. In this paper, we articulate how epistemic injustice in sociotechnical applications leads to material harm. Inspired by a hybrid collaborative autoethnography of 14 CSCW practitioners, we present three cases of epistemic injustice in sociotechnical applications: online transgender healthcare, identity sensemaking on r/bisexual, and Indigenous ways of knowing on r/AskHistorians. We further explore signature tensions across our autoethnographic materials and relate them to previous CSCW research areas and personal non-technological experiences. We argue that epistemic injustice can serve as a unifying and intersectional lens for CSCW research by surfacing dimensions of epistemic community and power. Finally, we present a call to action of three changes the CSCW community should make to move toward its own goals of research justice. We call for CSCW researchers to center individual experiences, bolster communities, and remediate issues of epistemic power as a means towards epistemic justice. In sum, we recount, synthesize, and propose solutions for the various forms of epistemic injustice that CSCW sites of study -- including CSCW itself -- propagate.

• The paper uses autoethnographic data from 14 CSCW practitioners to reveal how systemic power dynamics marginalize diverse knowledge sources.
• It examines case studies in transgender healthcare, r/bisexual identity sensemaking, and Indigenous history to illustrate practical impacts of epistemic injustice.
• Key recommendations urge centering individual narratives, strengthening inclusive community infrastructures, and addressing structural knowledge hierarchies.

Epistemic Injustice in CSCW Applications: An Analysis

The paper, "Whose Knowledge is Valued?: Epistemic Injustice in CSCW Applications" by Leah Hope Ajmani et al., addresses the pervasive issue of epistemic injustice in collaborative and social computing work (CSCW). The paper employs a collaborative autoethnographic approach involving 14 CSCW practitioners, exploring how epistemic injustice manifests in various sociotechnical environments. This document primarily focuses on three case studies: online transgender healthcare, identity sensemaking on r/bisexual, and Indigenous knowledge preservation on r/AskHistorians.

Conceptual Framework and Methodology

Epistemic injustice occurs when individuals or groups are systematically excluded from contributing to the knowledge canon, stripping them of their agency and legitimacy in public discourse. This research presents an intersectional lens for understanding how power dynamics and community interactions perpetuate or mitigate these injustices. The methodology incorporates autoethnographic testimonials, allowing researchers to draw on personal and professional experiences to elucidate the tangible impacts of epistemic injustice in CSCW.

Case Studies and Key Findings

1. Online Transgender Healthcare: The authors examine the digital healthcare space for transgender individuals. They highlight how mainstream medical knowledge often marginalizes non-Western and non-traditional understandings of gender and health. This disparity leads to material harms, such as inadequate care and diminished mental health outcomes.
2. Identity Sensemaking on r/bisexual: This case paper focuses on the r/bisexual subreddit, a platform where members seek to make sense of their identities. The research underscores the tension between dominant societal narratives and personal identity exploration. The platform's dynamics often privilege heteronormative discourses, thereby silencing diverse bisexual experiences.
3. Indigenous Knowledge on r/AskHistorians: The authors explore how Indigenous knowledge is treated on the r/AskHistorians forum. They argue that Western historical narratives frequently overshadow Indigenous perspectives, perpetuating epistemic injustice. This marginalization results in the loss of valuable cultural and historical knowledge, further entrenching colonialist viewpoints.

Implications and Recommendations for CSCW Research

The research identifies several signature tensions from the autoethnographic data, relating these to broader CSCW research themes. These include the negotiation between individual experiences and community norms, as well as the balance between established knowledge and emerging epistemologies. These tensions reveal the inherent power dynamics at play in digital environments and the need for more inclusive practices.

The paper culminates in a call to action, advocating for three significant changes within the CSCW community:

• Centering Individual Experiences: Researchers should prioritize individual narratives and lived experiences to ensure diverse perspectives are acknowledged and valued.
• Bolstering Communities: Building supportive, inclusive community infrastructures can mitigate the marginalization of non-dominant epistemologies.
• Remediating Epistemic Power: Addressing the structural power imbalances within CSCW applications can move the field towards epistemic justice, creating more equitable knowledge ecosystems.

Future Directions and Theoretical Contributions

The implications of this research stretch beyond immediate sociotechnical contexts to influence broader theoretical understandings of power, knowledge, and justice within digital environments. The use of epistemic injustice as a lens provides a robust framework for evaluating how knowledge is produced, shared, and valued within CSCW and related fields. Future research could further explore the mechanisms of epistemic power within different digital platforms and develop more nuanced strategies for achieving epistemic justice.

In sum, Ajmani et al. offer a comprehensive examination of epistemic injustice in CSCW applications, providing valuable insights and actionable recommendations for researchers and practitioners alike. Their work advances the discourse on how collaborative and social computing can evolve to support more equitable and inclusive knowledge practices.