The possibility of addressing epistemic injustice through engaged research practice: reflections on a menstruation related critical health education project in South Africa

Abstract

Questions of epistemic injustice in relation to community engagement activities have rarely been interrogated. While it is often purported that when academics and community members are involved in the co-creation of knowledge through a mutually beneficial exchange of resources and expertise, all participants emerge as active stakeholders in the knowledge production process, little research has been done on how academics or community partners experience these processes from an epistemological perspective. Does the proposed process of repositioning research participants in community engagement praxis allows for a new power dynamic to emerge in research such that all parties genuinely share equal responsibility for determining the processes and outcomes of the knowledge production process? Do such activities allow for an epistemological shift away from traditional knowledge construction paradigms to ones in which the democratisation of knowledge is prioritised? Does such an epistemological shift in the knowledge construction paradigm extend beyond simply the knowledge construction process to interpersonal relationships between academics and community members who see themselves as co-protagonists in a shared project? In grappling with these questions I will draw on my own, personal experiences working in a menstruation related engaged research critical health education project in South Africa, to discuss the complexities of whether and how the amelioration of epistemic injustices are being served through community engagement activities.     

Motives for Filing a False Allegation of Rape

The list of motives by Kanin (1994) is the most cited list of motives to file a false allegation of rape. Kanin posited that complainants file a false allegation out of revenge, to produce an alibi or to get sympathy. A new list of motives is proposed in which gain is the predominant factor. In the proposed list, complainants file a false allegation out of material gain, emotional gain, or a disturbed mental state. The list can be subdivided into eight different categories: material gain, alibi, revenge, sympathy, attention, a disturbed mental state, relabeling, or regret. To test the validity of the list, a sample of 57 proven false allegations were studied at and provided by the National Unit of the Dutch National Police (NU). The complete files were studied to ensure correct classification by the NU and to identify the motives of the complainants. The results support the overall validity of the list. Complainants were primarily motivated by emotional gain. Most false allegations were used to cover up other behavior such as adultery or skipping school. Some complainants, however, reported more than one motive. A large proportion, 20% of complainants, said that they did not know why they filed a false allegation. The results confirm the complexity of motivations for filing false allegations and the difficulties associated with archival studies. In conclusion, the list of Kanin is, based on the current results, valid but insufficient to explain all the different motives of complainants to file a false allegation.