Methodological commentary advocates for pluralistic empirical approaches to epistemic injustice in healthcare, highlighting the need for varied methods to capture complex clinical interactions.
Nielsen et al. (2025) have recently argued that the study of epistemic injustice in healthcare is subject to issues that, left unaddressed, threaten the ongoing research programme. One of their central worries is a lack of appropriate empirical evidence to support claims about the ubiquity and seriousness of these epistemic injustices which are commonly endorsed and rehearsed in publications on the topic. As researchers on the project Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare (EPIC), we offer responses to their concerns. While we sympathise with and develop some of their concerns, we express caution regarding others. We argue for an ongoing research agenda which is empirically-informed but maintains a pluralistic approach to research methods and approaches. This, we argue, is necessary in order to accommodate the complex social phenomenon of epistemic injustice in healthcare contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Byrne et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: