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=1lqZ3NPYysePVKsoyz66mDSgu4veDGJwnUBS47TBQPoOuNZY5J&fc=None&ff=20260807011006&v=2.20.1


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>