Honoring the Voice of the Client in Clinical Social Work Practice: Negotiating with Epistemic Injustice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epistemic injustice occurs when therapists implicitly and explicitly impose professional and institutional power onto clients. When clients have a diagnosis of schizophrenia, this very fact further complicates and highlights the power disparity within the helping relationship. Inspired by the work of critical philosopher Miranda Fricker on epistemic injustice, and using critical theories of language and knowledge, this article analyzes audiotaped session transcripts between a client with a history of psychosis and a social worker in an outpatient mental health agency. Findings illustrate two main discursive interactional patterns in everyday clinical social work encounters: (1) how the therapist's utterances claim disciplinary power and construct the client's testimony in alignment with an institutional agenda, while pre-empting the client's lived experience; and (2) how the client, though actively resisting, is managed to perform the identity of being a mentally ill person. The authors close with suggestions of how to avoid these mishaps and work toward epistemic justice in mental health practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".