Teo and Danziger

          Reading the article by Thomas Teo, I’ve learned that epistemological violence is the data interpretation of social-scientific data on “the other.” It is created when empirical data is interpreted as showing inferiority of or problematizes the “other.” Although some data allows for equally practical unconventional interpretations. The term epistemological violence implies that epistemology and integrities might not be different categories but actually belong together. Also that epistemological problems can be ethical issues as well.   I do agree with Teo when he argues epistemological violence should not be considered a hate crime, however, I believe it is morally wrong for one to degrade a specific group due to their interpretations, especially when data provides equality among them.

            The article by Danziger outlines the history of psychological research methodology from the nineteenth century to the development of currently favored styles of research. Danziger considers methodology as a kind of social practice rather than a simple matter of technique. His historical examination is mainly concerned with such topics as the development of the social structure of the research relationship between experimenters and their subjects, as well as the role of methodology in the relationship of investigators to each other and to a wider social context. Which can be exemplified by epistemological violence and how research can segregate and harm specific groups. Another major theme addresses the relationship between the social practice of research and the nature of the product that is the outcome of this practice.

Danziger, K., The Historical Formation Of Selves, Ashmore, Richard D. (Ed); Jussim, Lee J. (Ed), (1997). Self and identity: Fundamental issues. Rutgers series on self and social identity, Vol. 1., (pp. 137-159). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, xii, 242 pp.

Teo, T. (2010). What is Epistemological Violence in the Empirical Social Sciences? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 295-303.