Ethics and Epistemic Injustice in the Global South: A Response to Hopman’s Human Rights Exceptionalism as Justification for Covert Research
Author:
Kaur KirandeepORCID,
Grama BenORCID,
Roy Chaudhuri NairitaORCID,
Recalde-Vela Maria JoseORCID
Abstract
Abstract
This article investigates the risk of epistemic injustice in conducting sociolegal research in Global South contexts. Diving into the ethical imperatives of honouring knowledge, agency, and voice, we challenge extractive research practices and reframe participants as active, legitimate bearers of knowledge.
Covert research is a highly controversial research practice which bypasses the right to informed consent of participants. Marieke Hopman’s article titled ‘Covert Qualitative Research as a Method to Study Human Rights Under Authoritarian Regimes’ advocates for covert research in the field of human rights, provided this covert research passes her proposed ‘ethical test’. We argue that this test permits and requires practices of knowledge-making which unjustly silence, undervalue, and exclude the capacity of systematically marginalised communities to produce knowledge claims.
Hopman’s ethical test requires researchers to translate participants’ testimonies and situated knowledge into a doctrinal human rights framework, which comes with certain onto-epistemological assumptions which may not be shared by participants. Her approach frustrates research participants’ agency in choosing their own epistemic projects. Finally, her test exacerbates structural inequalities between the Global North and Global South by reinforcing unequal power relations.
We advocate for a situated ethics approach to mitigate epistemic injustice in socio-legal research in the Global South. Cross-cultural ethical dialogue between western and non-hegemonic ethics on a non-hierarchical and equal basis can contribute to building ‘intercultural ethics’. Reflexivity – where researchers critically examine their worldviews and social position throughout the research process – can ensure greater accountability and integrity. Reciprocity – building mutual research relationships and producing research useful to the researched – can help shift the power imbalance between the researcher and researched.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science,History
Reference120 articles.
1. Ethical Challenges in Cross-Cultural Field Research: A Comparative Study of UK and Ghana;Adu-Gyamfi;African Social Science Review,2014
2. ‘The Best of Times’ and ‘The Worst of Times’: Human Agency and Human Rights in Islamic Societies;An-Na’im;Muslim World Journal of Human Rights,2004
3. Decolonizing Human Rights
4. Epistemic and Political Freedom;Babbitt,2017
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Speaking of Epistemic Injustice: A Reply;Journal of Human Rights Practice;2023-06-24