Resisting the Imperative of Integration: Epistemic Injustice, Resistance and Openness in Inter- and Transdisciplinary Research

Abstract: Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research is essentially integrating a pluralism of perspectives to a more comprehensive solution or insight into the problem. Yet this article argues that with an “imperative of integration,” ITD approaches risk epistemic injustice or excluding some perspectives, for example, when those of non-academic stakeholders like indigenous groups or patients are marginalized or rejected. Three forms of epistemic injustice can be distinguished: contributory or participatory injustice, when some individuals or groups have no opportunity to adequately contribute to the research project. Testimonial injustice is when their insights are not taken seriously, while hermeneutical injustice indicates a lack of the interpretive resources to support understanding of their perspective. In our first case study, responding to epistemic injustice, persons with autism or their caregivers exert epistemic resistance. Defending neurodiversity, they criticize the leading deficit model of autism, pathologizing autism instead of recognizing it as a form of diversity and adjusting research accordingly. Arguing for improved inclusion of autistic voices, their endogenous epistemic resistance seeks to reshape research agendas and methodologies from within. Different is what happens in our second case with “Buen Vivir,” a Latin American concept of sustainability grounded in indigenous worldviews. As these worldviews are fundamentally different from Western scientific paradigms, their exogenous epistemic resistance does not only challenge common sustainability research but also addresses the—still continuing—colonial history of disruption, violence and exploitation. We argue that ITD researchers should be more aware of the injustices that lead to endogenous and exogenous epistemic resistance and learn how to respond to these. These researchers do well in obtaining an attitude of epistemic humility and openness and engaging with two constructive strategies that we present here: dialogue and imagination. Dialogue can help to address in an equitable way the epistemological,  etaphysical, and ethical assumptions that can make interdisciplinary integration challenging. Alternatively, the joint exercise of imagination may lead to the mental construction of novel realities that are not tainted by the epistemic injustices that led to the epistemic resistance.