A reply to “Fundamental issues in epistemic injustice in healthcare” by Nielsen, Nordgaard & Henriksen (2025)

Abstract 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy
Published
2026-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-026-10392-w
Primary Topic
Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A reply to “Fundamental issues in epistemic injustice in healthcare” by Nielsen, Nordgaard & Henriksen (2025)

Alice Monypenny, Dan Degerman, Eleanor Alexandra Byrne, Havi Carel et al.
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy
Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
article

A reply to “Fundamental issues in epistemic injustice in healthcare” by Nielsen, Nordgaard & Henriksen (2025)

Alice Monypenny, Dan Degerman, Eleanor Alexandra Byrne, Havi Carel, Matthew Broome, Fred Cooper
article en

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Medicine Health Care and Philosophy
University of Nottingham (GB), University of Bristol (GB), University of Birmingham (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.