Epistemic conflict in neurodevelopmental assessment: a critical discourse analysis of second opinion requests

CONCLUSION: Second opinion requests reveal three forms of epistemic injustice: testimonial (experiential knowledge discounted), hermeneutical (inadequate medical terminology), and a distinct procedural form (challenge genres systematically filter out those whose impairment makes genre-competent performance impossible and paradoxically render genre-competent performance as counter-evidence). These findings underscore the need for assessment pathways that prospectively capture masking,…

via https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42529012/?utm_source=Other&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=None&utm_content=1HYeX0emtvYgH07Wkz0a8n9otrdMd-JIklc_uo0I5vh1u9WMEy&fc=None&ff=20260731010805&v=2.20.0.post5+40e1b98


Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>