What Is Our “Epistemic Responsibility”? Reflections on Social Work’s Orientation in Yoga Therapy Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to explore how the social work discipline could provide a complementary lens through which yoga therapy can be analyzed and evaluated by engaging in knowledge-creation practices and procedures that prioritize the "epistemic responsibility" described by philosopher Lorraine Code. More specifically, by seeking to strategically include often-subjugated types of knowledge and by focusing on redistributing epistemic power to agents that typically have been excluded from epistemic participation in contemporary yoga therapy research, the social work discipline, with its strong commitment to social justice, has the potential to contribute to filling an important gap in scientific literature. We begin by presenting the relevance of the social work perspective in relation to the field of yoga therapy. We next offer a reserved critical analysis of the dominant technical knowledge base that currently informs yoga therapy practice. This analysis highlights the social parameters that may be rendered invisible or left aside when adopting a positivist epistemological lens and justifies how the conceptual apparatus of epistemic responsibility serves as a potential platform for rethinking social work's position and future contributions to the field of yoga therapy. Finally, we mobilize the concept of cultural appropriation to illustrate how striving for epistemic responsibility provides an entry point for addressing the multilevel, complex social processes embedded in yoga therapy practice and research while aiming to capture the many voices-and hence the various truths-implicated in a democratic, reflexive, and inclusive research process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".