Julian, I wasn’t at the presentation but in my view epistemological violence is very real for those on the receiving end of it. I have witnessed the harm caused by knowledge practices like evaluation, particularly dominant knowledge practices marginalising and/or invalidating the knowing of other groups. When we devalue or invalidate indigenous knowledge, we deny agency and voice, and lived realities, and perpetuate the felt violence of dominant and colonising systems.
This is not physical violence, but it’s just egregious, and has real and traumatic effects like poverty, ill health, higher death rates, etc.
Of course, a violent result may not have violent intent, but the point is, evaluators must be particularly sensitive to the potential for unintended violence.
How many complaints does it take to consider the intervention to be violent? If a minority complains, is it violent? Everybody can be offended by something as they now say. Where draw the line? How draw it?
This was the bit that I thought was (for a profession) self-indulgent in the extreme "Roberts argued that violence can be done to evaluators themselves, when their work is ignored, suppressed, or misrepresented by those in power" The author Roberts really needs to get out into the real world, where people are being shot and bombed, FFS!
Have to admit that was my kneejerk reaction when I heard it too. If ignoring, suppressing or misrepresenting my evaluation findings is the standard for violence, by all rights I should be clinically dead by now. But as Kate McKegg pointed out, when the consequence is real impact on mortality and morbidity - which is surely the case sometimes - perhaps it is we who are wrong…?
Julian, I wasn’t at the presentation but in my view epistemological violence is very real for those on the receiving end of it. I have witnessed the harm caused by knowledge practices like evaluation, particularly dominant knowledge practices marginalising and/or invalidating the knowing of other groups. When we devalue or invalidate indigenous knowledge, we deny agency and voice, and lived realities, and perpetuate the felt violence of dominant and colonising systems.
This is not physical violence, but it’s just egregious, and has real and traumatic effects like poverty, ill health, higher death rates, etc.
Of course, a violent result may not have violent intent, but the point is, evaluators must be particularly sensitive to the potential for unintended violence.
Thanks for sharing Julian - a worrisome yet worthy reflection!
How many complaints does it take to consider the intervention to be violent? If a minority complains, is it violent? Everybody can be offended by something as they now say. Where draw the line? How draw it?
This was the bit that I thought was (for a profession) self-indulgent in the extreme "Roberts argued that violence can be done to evaluators themselves, when their work is ignored, suppressed, or misrepresented by those in power" The author Roberts really needs to get out into the real world, where people are being shot and bombed, FFS!
Have to admit that was my kneejerk reaction when I heard it too. If ignoring, suppressing or misrepresenting my evaluation findings is the standard for violence, by all rights I should be clinically dead by now. But as Kate McKegg pointed out, when the consequence is real impact on mortality and morbidity - which is surely the case sometimes - perhaps it is we who are wrong…?
Thought provoking and inspirational as always. Thank you for sharing.
All: this is generating some interesting discussion over on LinkedIn too... https://www.linkedin.com/posts/julian-king-87a015a_when-evaluation-is-extractive-reductionist-activity-7345879257937604608-FjqT?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHIF54BZiPW94ioop0Sagq2YLAwUJQW_Jo