Fostering Epistemic Justice from a South American Decolonial Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest on postcolonial debates – which seek to change the power imbalances and knowledges hierarchies that persist between global north and south – have been increasing in critical and management studies (CMS). From the several angles from which decolonizing CMS could be addressed, we take the one of epistemic justice. We argue that epistemic justice is a pivotal angle to foster the debate around decoloniality, pointing towards historical processes of silencing or shaping situated forms of being and knowing that were seen as inferior or primitive to the extent they did not mirror Occidental models. Epistemic justice has been investigated from different perspectives, the two prominent being the subaltern studies and the critical feminist movement. Less known in this debate is the promising contribution of South American decolonial studies. We propose the following research question: How to foster epistemic justice from a South America perspective, therefore contributing to decolonize CMS? Using critical hermeneutics to analyse two Brazilian cases as our empirical field, our work makes two main contributions. The first is regarding the literature on decoloniality. Our work creates a bridge between decolonial concepts and epistemic justice, connecting these two streams by making a synthesis of the decolonial concepts and developing an innovative framework that suggest how to achieve epistemic justice using decolonial maneuvers. The second contribution is regarding the CMS literature. Our work brings epistemic justice as one of the central elements of the decolonizing movement, enriching the debate with concrete practices of how to walk towards epistemic justice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".