‘Who decided this?’: Negotiating epistemic and deontic authority in systemic family therapy training

In this article we illustrate how trainers and trainees negotiate epistemic and deontic authority within systemic family therapy training. Adult education principles and postmodern imperatives have challenged trainers’ and trainees’ asymmetries regarding knowledge (epistemics) and power (deontics), normatively implicated by the institutional training setting. Up-to-date, we lack insight into how trainers and trainees negotiate epistemic and deontic rights in naturally occurring dialog within training. Drawing from discursive psychology and conversation analysis, we present an analysis of eight transcribed, videotaped training seminars from a systemic family therapy training program, featuring three trainers and eleven trainees. Our analysis highlights the dilemmatic ways in which participants resist and affirm the normatively implicated trainers’ deontic and epistemic authority. Trainers are shown as mitigating directives and trainees as resisting them, with both displaying (not)knowing, while attending to concerns about (a)symmetry. We discuss our findings’ implications for systemic family therapy training.

Overcoming epistemic injustices in the biomedical study of ayahuasca: Towards ethical and sustainable regulation

After decades of biomedical research on ayahuasca's molecular compounds and their physiological effects, recent clinical trials show evidence of therapeutic potential for depression. However, indigenous peoples have been using ayahuasca therapeutically for a very long time, and thus we question the epistemic authority attributed to scientific studies, proposing that epistemic injustices were committed with practical, cultural, social, and legal consequences. We question epistemic authority based on the double-blind design, the molecularization discourse, and contextual issues about safety. We propose a new approach to foster epistemically fair research, outlining how to enforce indigenous rights, considering the Brazilian, Peruvian, and Colombian cases. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their biocultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and cultural expressions, including traditional medicine practices. New regulations about ayahuasca must respect the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples according to the International Labor Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention no. 169. The declaration of the ayahuasca complex as a national cultural heritage may prevent patenting from third parties, fostering the development of traditional medicine. When involving isolated compounds derived from traditional knowledge, benefit-sharing agreements are mandatory according to the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity. Considering the extremely high demand to treat millions of depressed patients, the medicalization of ayahuasca without adequate regulation respectful of indigenous rights can be detrimental to indigenous peoples and their management of local environments, potentially harming the sustainability of the plants and of the Amazon itself, which is approaching its dieback tipping point.

Motivated team innovation: Impact of need for closure and epistemic authority

New members are important sources of innovative perspectives in groups. However, it can be very difficult for newcomers’ ideas to be heard. It is likely that group members with high (vs. low) levels of need for closure (NFC) are more resistant to newcomers’ innovative ideas. Moreover, when group epistemic authority (EA) is high, members should “freeze” on the group’s ideas, regardless of the newcomer’s EA. In contrast, when group EA is low, members would be expected to “seize” the ideas proposed by newcomers with high EA. Study 1 confirmed that high (vs. low) NFC group members are more resistant to newcomers’ innovative ideas. In Study 2, in high NFC groups, evidence was obtained for seizing but not freezing. In Study 3, for group members with heightened NFC, both freezing and seizing results were obtained. Findings suggest that both NFC and EA play important roles in receptivity to newcomers’ ideas.

Grounded Normative Theory and Intersectional Differences

This article focuses on the promise of grounded normative theory in Luis Cabrera’s The Humble Cosmopolitan. The article celebrates Cabrera’s use of grounded normative theory as a way to center the lived experience of politically marginalized groups while also being attentive to the politics of knowledge production. My concern is not with the methodology itself; rather, it is with Cabrera’s partial use of it. I ask, how might the analysis of the book change if the author considered different intellectual histories of citizenship rooted in feminist and critical approaches? How might the theoretical assumptions and justifications of the book change if the author challenged his own assumptions, especially as they relate to the epistemic authority of Dalit women?

A “Middle Voice” from the South

In the 2020 Prague Virtual Conference of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), Sharon Traweek was awarded the society’s John D. Bernal Prize jointly with Langdon Winner. The Bernal Prize is awarded annually to individuals who have made distinguished contributions to the field of STS. Prize recipients include founders of the field of STS, along with outstanding scholars who have devoted their careers to the understanding of the social dimensions of science and technology. This is a reflection on Traweek’s work on epistemic authority in relation to Kaleidos—Center for Interdisciplinary Ethnography in Ecuador.

The Value of the Map and the Place of STS

In the 2020 Prague Virtual Conference of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), Sharon Traweek was awarded the society’s John D. Bernal Prize jointly with Langdon Winner, for her distinguished contributions to the field of STS. In this essay responding to Traweek’s Bernal Lecture, I explore the continuing relevance of her work for Japan’s STS community. Even though this community has grown rapidly since the beginning of the 2000s, I argue in this essay that her work, produced more than three decades ago, encourages us today to reflect how we may want to relate ourselves to the local organization of science and the politics of epistemic authority in the country.

Talking about Complimentary and Alternative Medicine: A Conversation Analysis Study

Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a clonal plasma cell malignancy characterized by low blood counts and increased risk of infection, and primarily afflicts older adults. Although MM is incurable, advances in treatment, including autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has improved the lifespan of patients. MM patients commonly use over-the-counter complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) alongside conventional cancer therapies which, often without recognition by health care practitioners, may impact their treatment. Using data from an 18-month ethnographic study, we applied conversation analysis to examine 1180 minutes of audio-recordings to describe how patients and nurses interacted about CAM during ASCT education visits. Patients (n=12) had a median age of 62 years (IQR= 54-73), were mostly white (n=12, 75%), male (n=9, 56%), and had a moderate score on the FACT-G7 of 15 (IQR= 10-20). All patients had a caregiver present during their visit. Nurses (n=3) were aged 39 (IQR= 29-49) all with at least five years providing care to patients with blood cancers. Results suggested that nurses rarely provided direct feedback about CAM modalities, instead providing brief responses, and moving on to other topics. Excerpts were categorized into three groups, (1) demonstration of implicit epistemic authority, (2) demonstration of deferred epistemic authority in patient-initiated conversations, and (3) demonstration of deferred epistemic authority in nurse-initiated conversations. Understanding how conversations surrounding CAM are navigated can provide insights into patient-communication in general, and methods for improving ASCT education.

Religious Disagreement and Pluralism

This volume explores many issues at the intersection of the epistemology of disagreement and religious epistemology. Epistemological questions about the significance of disagreement have advanced in concert with broader developments in social epistemology concerning testimony, the nature of expertise and epistemic authority, the role of institutions, group belief, and epistemic injustice, among others. During this period, related issues in the epistemology of religion have re-emerged as worthy of new consideration, and available to be situated with new conceptual tools. Does disagreement between, and within, religions, challenge the rationality of religious commitment? How should religious adherents think about exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist frameworks as applied to religious truth, or to matters of salvation or redemption? This volume engages in careful reflection on religious diversity and disagreement, offering ways to balance epistemic humility with personal conviction. Recognizing the place of religious differences in our social lives, it provides renewed efforts at how best to think about truths concerning religion.

Says Who? Credibility Effects in Self-Verification Strivings

Research shows that people prefer self-consistent over self-discrepant feedback—the self-verification effect (Swann, 1983, 2012). It is not clear, however, whether the effect stems from striving for self-verification or from the preference for subjectively accurate information. We argue that people self-verify because they find self-verifying feedback more accurate than self-discrepant feedback. We thus experimentally manipulated feedback credibility by providing information on its source: a student in the control condition and an experienced psychologist in the experimental condition. In line with our expectations, the results of two preregistered studies with 342 preselected participants showed that people self-verified only in the control condition. In the experimental condition, the effect disappeared (or reversed in Study 1). Study 2 showed that individual differences in credibility (epistemic authority) ascribed to self and psychologists matter as well. These findings suggest that feedback credibility, rather than the desire for self-verification, often drives the self-verification effect.