Leadership Through Language, Terminology and Representation: Conceptual and Tangible Steps Towards Epistemic Justice Practices

Abstract

This article is based on research about language, terminology and representation in relation to institutions in Ireland formerly known as ‘Mother and Baby Homes’. Learning from this research informs tangible and conceptual steps towards greater epistemic justice practices for social work. The concept of epistemic justice is used to explore how critical attention to language, terminology and testimony can contribute to promoting rights, countering stigma, recognising diversity and actively challenging misrepresentation, mis-framing and misrecognition. Based on a sample of research findings that demonstrate epistemic injustice, the main themes discussed are identity (motherhood, childhood), places (institutions) and processes (adoption). In the discussion, we draw from participant’s recommendations to outline how social work can provide enhanced leadership in relation to the use of language, terminology and representation and consider this in the context of current research relating to epistemic justice. Given the centrality of language, terminology and representation to social work, there is a significant opportunity within an international context to build on existing knowledge within the profession as well as amongst other professionals, organisations and wider society. To inform this improved ‘knowing and doing’, a number of conceptual and tangible steps to encourage epistemically just practices within social work are identified.

Introduction

Words, language and testimony are the business of social work. This article, based on a study about language, terminology and representation, considers how social work can enhance leadership regarding the use of language, terminology and representation towards more epistemically just practice. The research related to experiences of persons who gave birth in, or who were born in special institutions run by the State and/or contracted to religious orders between approximately 1950 and 1980 in Ireland. Stigma surrounding birth outside of marriage was profound and far-reaching at this time. The ‘mark’ of pregnancy as a single woman or being born to a lone parent was a ‘stigmatising cue’ (Smith, 2007) upheld by moralistic religious discourses, and normalised and sanctioned by the State. The findings demonstrate the power of language and the impact of stigma that operates through people and communities creating discrediting ‘marks’ leading to discriminatory responses at individual and structural levels (Whelan, 2021). To advance our learning, we use the lens of epistemic justice to consider implications for present day social work. In section one, we discuss epistemic justice. Section two reports on the research methods and findings, whilst section three considers the implications for social work practice and leadership.

Section one: framing the issues—social work language and epistemic injustice

Applying a critical frame of epistemic injustice builds on the long-established attention to language and terminology in social work (e.g. Timms, 1968). Words used to describe people in terms of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, ability and so on are constantly changed, critiqued and updated. Experiences like domestic violence, homelessness, poverty, are subject to constant review and learning from persons with direct experience regarding how they wish to be referred to and how language and terminology represents or misrepresents their experiences and identities. Many theories and methods inform critical approaches to language. For example, social constructionist, therapeutic and dialogical approaches in social work (e.g. Parton and O’ Byrne, 2000: Fook, 2002) have been used ‘to question, expose, challenge and reframe’ (Gregory and Holloway, 2005, p. 51). The learned skill of using language in practice also involves a focus on the step before communication. As McGovern (2016) cautions, we need to learn to consider the actual words and the effect they can have, both on ourselves and in our work with other people. Other critical analyses focus on language and social justice (Hawkins et al., 2001), ‘narrative inequality’ (Livholts, 2022) ‘language prejudice’ and ‘language discrimination’ (Johnstone and Kanitsaki, 2008).

Epistemic injustice is a concept derived from complex interdisciplinary theorisation (Kidd et al., 2017), based primarily on the work of Fricker (2007). It includes testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. Testimonial injustice occurs when there is a failure ‘to see speakers as credible when they are credible, due to the hearer’s identity prejudice’ (Battaly, 2017, p. 223). Hermeneutical injustice relates to ‘an unfair disadvantage in comprehending and/or getting others to comprehend an experience’ (Fricker, 2017, p. 53). It occurs when a dominant discourse fails to take account of the ‘truth’ of experiences. It distorts the critical understandings of those closest to the issues in the ways we make sense of, theorise, and respond to social issues (see Fricker, 2007, 2017).

Epistemic injustice provides a critical frame to consider how words, terms and language are used to represent and misrepresent. It helps to interrogate codes, processes, policies and discourses that can lead to injustices based on stigma, prejudice, misuse of power and ‘erasure’. A focus on epistemic injustice shows how ‘knowledge’ expressed through words and language is constructed in an unequal way. Those who have least power and most expertise by experience, are denied the opportunity to inform the dominant knowledge and discourses through testimonial and hermeneutic injustices (Fricker, 2007, 2017).

As discussed, issues relating to equality, anti-discrimination and promotion of social justice arise in many aspects of critical social work analysis including a focus on critical discourse analysis, power and anti-discriminatory practice. Social work as a profession, whilst not necessarily framing the issues as epistemic justice, may be considered a leader in the promotion of more egalitarian use of language and terminology. However, this leadership can be curtailed by the relatively ‘powerless’ or ‘lower’ status of social work in some contexts (Shlomo and Levin-Keini, 2021) where social work itself faces stereotypes and debilitating discourse especially in many media portrayals and public perception. Furthermore, we need to be cognizant of the ‘contested’ positioning of social work as both facilitator and perpetrator with regard to its commitment to anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice on the one hand and the profession’s own role in reinforcing social norms, stereotyping and power differentials in its own use of language and labelling on the other (Rojek, 1989).

Regarding Discourse Analysis, many critical studies of language relevant to social work demonstrate how terminology changes over different historical contexts manifesting dominant discourses like ‘moral’, ‘therapeutic’ and ‘managerial’ socio-legal, ‘neo-liberal’ and so on (e.g. Gregory and Holloway, 2005). Discourse is constructed through various words and terms. For example, Skehill (1999, 2003, 2004) analysed the ‘socio-spiritual’ discourses of child welfare practices in Ireland during the mid-20th century. Such ‘discourses’ were reflected in the words used in policies (e.g. ‘unmarried’ mothers as ‘offenders’), practices (e.g. confluence of religious and welfare discourses aimed at ‘saving souls’, ‘rescue from proselytization’), laws (e.g. legal status of words like ‘illegitimate’) and communications (e.g. dominant words like ‘fallen’ or ‘sinful’). Together, such discourses lead to constructions of ‘discursive identity’ where people affected have no power in this definition nor recognition of themselves in such descriptions. Despite extensive attention to language and terminology, how we ‘refer’ to, or ‘represent’ people who are the ‘subjects of social work’ is ‘something of a minefield, with no clear path’ (Beresford et al., 2023, p. 1275). As argued by Skoura-Kirk, social work education influences how students discursively construct services users in terms of individualised ‘deserving-undeserving’ identities which can ‘perpetuate depoliticised or oppressive categorisations (2023).

More broadly, attention to power and power relations in social work (e.g. Karim, 2023) is essential to amplify how language has the power to regulate, control, label, suppress or empower and promote rights and justice. It is well established that ‘dominant narratives of privileged elites…restrict spaces for marginalised people’ (Livholts, 2022, p. 776). Concepts of epistemic justice and cultural humility inform the challenges and opportunities for decolonisation of social work knowledge (Anka, 2024). Theorisation of knowledge and power within the context of decolonisation calls out dominant discourses of eurocentrism described as an epistemology of ignorance (Alcoff, 2017) and highlights the need for ‘neuro-decolonisation’ of our mindset that shape the language and terminology before its even spoken (Yellowbird, 2013).

The growing body of international literature in Indigenous knowledge and indigenous social work contributes significantly here (e.g. Johnstone and Lee, 2021) with awareness also of the contested and complex dimensions inherent in such work (Moss et al., 2022). A focus on epistemic injustice contributes to historical, transitional and social justice which provides an opportunity for professional social work to assert its commitment and expertise as a proclaimed social justice-oriented profession in a very deliberate manner. As discussed further later, this requires collective action and assertion of social work in global and local contexts that challenges ‘discriminatory epistemic injustice’ when prejudice is a ‘direct discrimination’ against those speaking or trying to speak whilst the words of others are privileged (Fricker, 2017) or the ‘deliberately silenced and preferably unheard’ (Maglajlic and Ioakimidis, 2022, p. 1). Through well-established anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory approaches in social work, a more grounded focus on Fricker’s analysis of epistemic injustice has the potential ‘to reduce stigma and combat injustice via the development and promotion of languages that enable us to reconceptualise harmful social interactions, to render previously distorted or invisible injustices transparent’ (Fieller and Loughlin, 2022, p. 868).

For this project, testimonial injustice included lack of recognition of the ‘truth’ of persons with direct experience and use of language, terminology and representation that was offensive to those it related to. Hermeneutical injustice relates to the theories, ideas, assumptions and practices applied to understanding and making sense of the experience of a mother or former child of the institutions in Ireland which do not take into account their understanding, expertise or experience—or disregards it even if known. To guide an epistemic justice approach, Fricker suggests that we ‘start thought from marginalised lives’ (2017, p. 58). For this article, this means focusing on learning from our research regarding the impact of language, terminology and representation, with persons with direct and lived experience of these institutions. In the discussion, the wider implications for social work are addressed based on learning from this specific example.

Section two: the research study; language, terminology and representation

This study was funded through the COALESCE (Collaborative Alliances for Societal Challenges) Irish Research Council scheme and supported by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) in Ireland. It was one of the number of actions agreed by the Irish Government to complement the work of the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Inquiry in Ireland established in 2015, with a final report published in 2021 (DCEDIY, 2021). The specific need for a focus on language, terminology and representation and the subsequent commissioning of this research was identified in the First Report of the Collaborative Forum of Former Residents of Mother and Baby Homes and Related Institutions (2018, published Autumn 2023).

Research design; context and methodology

The overall objective of the research was to consider how a critical understanding of the use of language in relation to the lived experiences and treatment of mothers and those who were children in ‘Mother and Baby’ and related institutions in Ireland can inform current and future public and media discourse, and the provision of welfare or other services which are central to the lives of survivors and others directly affected today (McGregor et al., 2023a). The main focus of the research was to learn from direct lived experiences about the impact of language, terminology and representation on them and what could be done about this (see McGregor et al., 2023a, 2023b for the research reports).

The research was overseen by a steering group made up of representations from the Collaborative Forum of former residents of Mother and Baby Homes and related institutions, the DCEDIY and the relevant University. The University of Galway provided ethical approval (Ref: 2020.08.002). An unstructured narrative approach to individual and group interviews was chosen to ensure both depth and breadth in the perspectives of the participants (Wengraf, 2001). This involved minimal intervention from the interviewers, a strong emphasis on listening and supporting participants in the process of telling their story as and how they wished to. An open-ended narrative-inducing question was used:

Can you please tell us about the words, language, or references to your personal situation and experiences that you have found offensive or that you think should no longer be used? Please start wherever you wish and take your time?

Additional related prompts were asked in follow-up and guided the consultations. The focus on individual narratives served two primary purposes; to bear witness to people’s suffering and acknowledge the abuse they experienced, and to learn lessons from past events to better understand the impact of the language, terminology and representation used. The benefit of using an open narrative approach was that it allowed participants to start where they were comfortable and only discuss words and terminology that they chose to. The limitation was that we were not able to probe into areas if the person did not decide to discuss this in detail, which means we may have missed data on highly relevant topics. However, given the sensitivity of the issues, and importance of an interviewee led process, the open narrative method was considered to be the most suitable, ethical and appropriate for this study.

It was decided within the Steering Group that an inclusive approach to sampling and recruitment would be used, and an open invite was extended to all who had experience of involvement in the institutions to participate. The open invitation had several components:

• A virtual panel discussion held by the University to provide information on the project and to extend an invitation to those with experience to participate in the research.

• An invitation issued via email through the DCEDIY mailing list and to all relevant Steering Group Members’ networks and contacts.

• An information page with details of the project and how to participate was included on the researcher's website and shared on social media platforms.

• A dedicated telephone number and email address were established for the project.

Once potential participants made contact with the project, a researcher discussed their queries, provided them with the necessary information and explored the possibilities of their participation in the consultations. One of the main ethical issues in this study related to distress and/or re-traumatisation. We were very conscious of the potential for this study to cause distress or re-traumatise participants when talking about their experiences. This concern needed to be balanced with the avoidance of paternalism or assumptions of vulnerability. The planning, implementation and follow up from the interviews required the researchers to pay constant attention to ethical concerns about anonymity, handling sensitive data, protecting privacy, responding to distress caused by preparation or engagement in the interview and providing copies of transcripts safely and securely to participants to check and agree for use after the interviews. A number of specific measures included:

• Individual counselling support services were sourced and offered to participants if they wished to avail of them.

• Provision was made for both online and socially distanced in-person consultations as participants preferred. The location for face-to-face consultations was private, comfortable, and accessible, with refreshments provided. Comfort breaks were offered and available as necessary.

• All personal information and experiences were treated with sensitivity and care.

• All information was treated confidentially and stored and reported anonymously. To this end no identifiable information was recorded; all information was stored securely using password-protected files, transcripts were returned to participants using password-protected files or through registered post, and all identifying information was removed in the process of analysis and report writing.

The final sample included forty-three individuals, comprising twenty-six one-to-one interviews, eight people who participated in a group interview and nine people who provided written submissions. All participants who contacted the research team opted to participate in the study and provided informed consent. Participants had experience of either being former children, mothers or both within the institutions. Interviews were conducted by two researchers and took between 30 min and 2.5 hr. All participants were afforded the time necessary to tell their story and discuss their experiences at their own pace.

Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis approach was used with an in-depth process of coding employed (2021, 2022). To ensure anonymity a decision was made not to code individual stories. Instead, all relevant words, terminology and references to aspects of ‘representation’ were coded. After a thorough process of coding and re-coding following the steps of Braun and Clarke and with a strong emphasis on reflexivity, the main themes within which a range of words, terms and issues relating to representation were identified.

Given the highly emotive and often very distressing nature of the data that was being collected, critical awareness and space for reflexivity in the research process, core to Braun and Clark’s approach, was important. This included personal reflexivity (awareness of how our own values, experience and knowledge was affecting how we heard, listened and analysed), functional reflexivity (how the method affected the process) and disciplinary reflexivity (how our own disciplines affected our interpretation and response to the findings and analysis).

Research findings

The research findings show evidence of stigmatising and offensive language and the power of language and terminology to represent or misrepresent. As one participant highlighted: ‘Words are like weapons, and it is very hard to shake off the nasty things being said to you’. The main themes from the research focused on Identities (mother, child/children), Places (home, institution) and Processes (adoption). Commentary on who was using this language and terminology concludes this section. Specific illustrative quotes are highlighted, and readers can read a full account of the narrative findings in the report (McGregor et al., 2023a).

Identities of ‘Mother’ and ‘Child’

Many participants discussed the shame and stigma of being labelled an ‘unmarried mother’ which erased people’s identities:

We were never described as real people. We were just clustered together and were known just as either unmarried mothers or birth mothers

Whilst some terms about motherhood such as ‘unmarried’ were unacceptable to all participants, other terms were contested. The word ‘birth mother’ was discussed and debated at length. For many, the term was offensive because it misrepresented and misrecognised their experience of motherhood. Participants referred to the fact that it implies your only value, and your only use was during the birth and that the term birth mother… completely annihilates you and destroys you, erases you from your child’s life.

However, other respondents thought it was important recognition:

I know personally there are mothers who regard themselves as a birth mother and actually take comfort in knowing that they gave birth to a child who was able to bring joy to another family.

The need to allow for women and for those affected to use the terms that they wish to use rather than completely denouncing or saying that does not apply to me was emphasised by many. The sense of powerlessness over this right to decide on one's motherhood status and being judged as a second-class citizen illustrates hermetical injustice.

The absence or omission of words that shows ‘erasure’ is another feature of epistemic injustice found in the research. Participants spoke about the absence of ‘positive’ terminology like ‘expectant mother’:

You never hear sentences about expecting mums, new mums, or mammies.

The hermeneutically unjust way in which mothers within the institutions were viewed is reflected in the view that:

they didn’t see us as real humans, or real people, they didn’t see us as expectant mums…we just weren’t seen

Respondents also discussed how many words existed for ‘mother’ and yet so few words to refer to ‘father’. The evidence is clear that children were ‘fathered’ in both consenting and non-consenting circumstances. This included one-off relationships, child abuse and rape, but also loving long-term relationships, as one participant emphasised; he came every day to see me until eventually the nuns let him in, However, at an overall level there is little attention paid to fathers and no terminology to describe this diversity of ‘fatherhood’.

The continual failure within government reports to recognise (represent) a person’s ‘motherhood’ was discussed. One person described being in a room with government officials as a published report based on their testimonies was being shared. They expressed their initial excitement that the report was made public but then:

as I pulled it towards me, I looked at the big headlines of the report, and I pushed it away. And I said, how sad is it that they even haven’t got the decency to just call us a mother. No, it was there ‘unmarried mothers’ in big writing.

The lack of recognition, and refusal to change a dominant narrative in line with testimonials from persons with direct experience, was compounded by concern that those responsible were not aware of the damage they were doing:

So, I was saddened at the language throughout that report, that they couldn’t even get it right. And they saw no harm in it.

Terminology used to describe the children in the institutions also caused offense. Two words repeatedly highlighted were: ‘illegitimate’ and ‘bastard’. Whilst ‘illegitimate’ is no longer a legally permissible term in Ireland, it still exists on official original birth certs and related identity documents. One person discussed their experience of accessing their official birth records:

the big thing that really hit me was the status, it said legitimate or illegitimate. So straight away illegitimate is on my details… how horrible, when I have to show any forms or anything this comes up, illegitimate.

Use of the word ‘bastard’, an offensive term for a person born where their parents are not married is also an ongoing trigger of shame, hurt and stigma for many:

Sometimes you would rather a slap in the face than to be called a bastard.

Terms such as ‘unaccompanied child’—also caused offence and emotional upset as it implied that the child or children had been left ‘unaccompanied’ when the reality was that mothers were present, often in a nearby room, and sometimes not allowed to see their children:

the hurt that causes, the thought, the distress, the thought that your child is there on its own when it is a tiny wee toddler, or a baby and you can’t see them is just horrendous.

Care about how to represent adults who were adopted as children or babies by the media and within Government Reports and debates was also called for:

I am 6’ 1” and 51…I am not a baby anymore.

It was suggested that continual referral to the adopted person as a baby takes a bit of the power out of it and puts the differential back on the poor baby. For many respondents use of certain terminology was viewed as a deliberate way to exclude or distance them:

it was all about … creating differences where no differences really should exist. It doesn’t really matter to any extent where we come from, our background, it is more about the individual, who you are today, your principles and values.

Places—institutions and related terminology

Many respondents spoke about ‘places’ such as ‘home’ or ‘mother and baby home’, ‘county home’ and/or ‘institution’. The word ‘home’ was unacceptable to many participants as their experience in the institutions did not reflect commonly held views of a ‘home’:

You didn’t have freedom of choice; they were holding sites, like prisons, with slavery, they were regimental.

Respondents proposed use of the alternative term ‘institution’ instead. Another objectionable word was ‘resident’, with words like ‘incarcerated’ and ‘detainee’ suggested as more accurately reflecting people’s experiences. The lack of choice about being in the institutions was highlighted:

a resident sound like you are in a hotel or something and as if you had a choice to reside there whereas actually all of our choices were taken away from us.

Many expressed a frustration with the ongoing use of the term ‘home’ and ‘resident’ by Government reports—another example of hermeneutical injustice through ongoing use of terms known to offend:

No matter what you do you can’t get over what happened to you in life… But you can be careful with the way you label things that are going into reports.

Processes—‘Adoption’ and related terminology

A number of words were highlighted in relation to adoption and their use in the past and present. These included ‘forced adoption’, ‘illegal adoption’, ‘child trafficking’, and the process of being ‘placed’ for adoption. The word adoption itself was also a cause of discrimination and shame:

I remember the family across the road, they all knew I was adopted …whenever I was arguing with …, who was my best friend, he would say, you are adopted anyway. It was always seen as the default insult.

Participants highlighted the need to use the correct terminology in describing their experience of adoption that acknowledged the lack of choice that most mothers had in relation to keeping their children. Participants suggested more accurate terms for their experiences was forced or enforced adoption:

the truth of it is that it was an enforced placement of the child, and you had to sign away your rights.

Discussing the evidenced facts that some children were taken for adoption without mother’s knowledge of consent, the term ‘human trafficking’ was suggested as more accurate for some than adoption:

Babies were born, taken away from the mother, the mother was told the baby had died and then the baby was sold into the United States.

Many challenged the lack of use of words to reflect the reality of experiences:

Abduction, kidnapping, they are not words you will find and yet that is what happened. A lot of people use illegal adoptions while it really transpired it was an illegal registration of a child.

Placement was also identified as a problematic term:

adoptive parents would say that sometimes, social workers would say it too, a kind of happy language to say that we were placed. I wasn’t placed. My mother walked out of the hospital; she didn’t place me anywhere. I was abandoned. I was relinquished.

The misrepresentation of people’s identities through the written processes associated with adoption and placement was a matter of major concern past and present for a number of participants, as one person asked:

Who is writing the first account of your baby’s life or your time in hospital, who is writing this? Who is writing all your records? It’s the nuns, not the nurses, not the doctors…

… the nuns who put you through this hell, so they are going to tell the truth about what happened?

Testimonial injustice was also reflected in the fact that participants often had to tell their story repeatedly in the present, for example when persons who were adopted were engaged in tracing or seeking information:

Their attitude is yes, we will help this fellow out… but do you know what, I am not going to pay you with my story every time I have to go to a government department. I think that is the thing, the constant reiterating of having to tell someone all through my stuff

The use of this language and terminology

The final section of the findings focuses on the use and continued use of these words. Collectively, dominant societal attitudes reinforced stigma and shame. As one person stated: unfortunately, it was an oppressive state that we lived in and that was down to the control of the people, it was down to, not just the church, it was the whole mechanics of our country and all of us.

Many attributed this to the power the Catholic Church held over the moralistic discourses about pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage:

They prevented anyone talking about the pain and the stuff that happened to them in these institutions, the rapes that went on because nobody was going to believe them because they had credibility in the first place. The Church had the monopoly on words that were used.

The power of the Government to not listen was also highlighted:

I don’t believe the government departments were in any way interested. I think we were just an inconvenient problem that they just keep trying to find different ways to sweep under various rugs.

Participants argued that government departments failed to pay attention to learning from consultation with various individuals and groups instead imposing their own ‘discourses’ (hermeneutics):

A language had been spun by the government in order to facilitate a particular narrative that they wanted to pursue.

This was compounded by exclusion of persons with direct experience in drawing up responses and policies:

they go away and sit in these boardrooms and talk about us and come up with redress schemes which are highly problematic, they come up with a new bill. I am not being represented.

The failure to acknowledge the offensive nature of language was also highlighted:

‘sanitising the language is a method of concealing what truly happened’.

Participants linked this unwillingness to listen to inequality and power difference. As described: they don’t understand simple folk like us, or they choose not to, and that they are speaking over us, in fact it causes more problems … we are gone beyond patient at this stage, we want action, no more talk

Distressing involvement with social workers in the past was also outlined:

I remember the social worker driving me from my grandmother’s house when I was pregnant, I was only 15, … she told me I was disgusting, and nobody would ever want me ever again. I had brought shame on my family … I was actually called pitiful, poison … she used words describing me as disturbed, unstable

Current uncritical use of language by professionals including social workers and adoption agency staff in the present was also discussed:

even when they email me, and parts of the email [are] quite nice and welcoming, but they destroy it with their language.

Section three: discussion

This discussion outlines some actions that can inform leadership in promoting epistemic justice within social work, under the following themes developed from some of the key messages from the research participants to inform social work specifically:

• Collaboration and partnership with those who have lived experience;

• Developments within social work education;

• Collective leadership actions for social work at regional and international levels.

Collaboration and partnership with those who have lived experience

As Fricker suggests it is through ‘ground-up energies’ that the concepts of testimonial and hermeneutic injustice ‘evolve’ (2017, p. 59). This study has provided one such ‘ground up’ example and participants emphasised the importance of inclusive and participatory practices going forward. Social Work is well placed to lead on the advancement of collaboration and partnership with those with direct lived experience through building on existing advancements in ‘service user’ involvement in social work (Beresford, et al., 2023) and wider developments of patient and public involvement across many disciplines (PPI). To create capacity for meaningful and equal participation in actions such as those suggested here, significant investment of resource is needed to support engagement with persons with direct lived experience due to the very unequal power starting point.

Developments within social work education

This study demonstrates the importance of education and awareness raising and it is a responsibility of social work educators internationally to lead on relation to promote hermeneutical and testimonial justice as central to human rights and social justice practices. In order to be able to tackle hermeneutical injustice, students and practitioners have to be able to conceptually ‘see’ and ‘criticise’ dominant discourses that ignore or diminish people’s experiences. Awareness of the power inherent in professional language and terminology is essential. This also requires more critical consideration of how knowledge for social work is constructed and informed by persons with direct and lived experience. Theory building that involves inclusive knowledge development processes is most likely to be attuned to the sensitivities and nuances of language, terminology and its impact. Advancements in indigenous knowledge production oriented towards reconceptualization and away from ‘professional meta-narratives’ can contribute significantly here. For example, Johnstone and Lee (2021), show how the ‘recent victories of Indigenous feminist activism in gathering the stories of Indigenous women, challenging dominant meta-narratives and rewriting the herstory of Canada’ has ensured ‘that we are not listening through the lens of professional meta-narratives such as medicalized symptomology or expert knowledge’ (p. 387).

Stigmatising language, from past or present, needs to be acknowledged and challenged. As one participant stated: ‘Words are like weapons, and it is very hard to shake off the nasty things being said to you’. For testimonial justice to be realised, contested terminology needs to be discussed, considered and managed, not avoided. Whilst students may be conscious of not using overtly offensive terms such as ‘illegitimate’ or ‘unmarried’, our learning from this study reminds us that there is less awareness of the emotive impact of ‘received’ terms like ‘birth’ mothers, ‘residents/residential’ or ‘home’ that still features strongly in social work terminology today. The more aware students, social workers and policy makers are of how their ‘social power may unduly subjugate the voices of the people with whom they are seeking to work’ the more they will be able ‘to identify the underlying—prejudicial—mechanisms that cause the situations they encounter to be as they are’ (Dore, 2019, p. 388). To do this, they need to be ‘systematically astute in their questioning of events and mindful of how things like their identity, privilege and professional training shapes’ (Dore, 2019). Students need to be taught how to ‘inquire and use language that reflects the position of the client’ (Choate, 2019, p. 1083) otherwise, they will reinforce individualist or stereotypical discourse, knowingly or unknowingly. For example, to continue to use identifying terms like ‘birth’ mother (or parent) uncritically, given what we know about how some people find it so offensive, is an example of stubborn hermeneutically unjust practice. Failing to teach awareness of how words about places (e.g. the use of the term ‘home’ in some institutional contexts) or emotive and sensitive processes (like adoption) means we are reinforcing epistemic injustice despite our learning, as evidenced in this illustrative example, of the impact this has on those the words refer to. As outlined in the Global standards for social work, methods and approaches taught on programmes should always promote dignity and respect and must include critical understandings of discrimination and oppression and their impact (Ioakimidis and Sookraj, 2021).

As well as considering the conceptual aspects relating to language, terminology and representation, there is also a skills based required. Epistemically just practice requires intelligence, sensitivity, reflexive awareness values, and critical knowledge of epistemic justice to practice from a non-defensive stance and to mediate contested terminology. Other aspects of the ‘affective dimension of epistemic injustice’ (Zembylas, 2022, p. 725) include empathy, humility, compassion and willingness to engage all common features of social work education and practice that can be enhanced when framed through an epistemic justice lens.

Collective leadership actions for social work at regional and international levels

Whilst a focus on epistemic justice must commence within social work education, learning from the study reported here has much wider implications for social work at regional and global levels. It reinforces the importance of ‘facing up to history’ to acknowledge that social work has not always been a panacea for ‘doing’ and ‘saying’ the right thing. Critical engagement with well-evidenced and established contested history of social work is essential (Ioakimidis and Wiley, 2023) because epistemic justice requires attention to historical and transitional justice actions (McGregor, Devaney and Buckley, 2023a). Learning from this study, the importance of ‘taking responsibility’ and accepting people’s ‘truth’ about their past and using the learning to avoid repeating injustices in the present through language use was emphasised.

Through collective and global actions, social work has a responsibility to challenge the use of language, terminology and representation that reinforces stigmatization, stereotyping and assignment of ‘second-class’ citizens at all levels of society. Epistemically just practice requires a reflexive approach to explore how ‘what is known’, ‘how it is known’ and ‘who claims to know’ constructs experiences and identity from day-to-day encounters to fixed institutional and policy discourses. It involves bringing to light injustice caused by those in authority (government, media, churches, professionals in this case study) who have significant influence over terminology and language and being guardians of terminology that features in policy, data systems, intervention methods as well as day-to-day communications. Social workers can also influence other disciplines (e.g. history, sociology, political science, psychology, social policy) by raising awareness and developing affirmative actions to address the ongoing stigmatising effect of certain language and terminology and how it is used to represent or misrepresent people’s experiences and identities. Overall, epistemically just practice ensures that people’s identities and experiences are represented fairly and justly. Since words, language and talk are the core business of social work, there is a lead role to play in ensuring epistemically just practice.

In sum, epistemic justice must become a central element of social work’s commitment to cultural, economic, social and legal justice. As Maglajlic and Ioakimidis (2022) noted practitioners, managers and scholars need to work towards more meaningful ways to challenge distributional injustice. It delivers a critical lens to ‘go behind’ the language and terminology to promote more just recognition of people's testimonies and their expert knowledge. It requires attention to both conceptual expression and practical application with a focus on ‘epistemic-affective’ justice, reflexivity, empathy, social action and justice.

Conclusion

A feature of social work globally is its commitment to egalitarian discourse and tackling injustice with a focus on those who are most likely to experience stigma and be subject to negative stereotyping and misrepresentation. Whilst this study is specific to a region and a particular area of practice in the past, we have shown its wider relevance for social work and in the discussion, we have identified some tangible steps that could be taken to lead in relation to promoting epistemic justice across multiple domains where people’s identifies are mis-represented, their ‘truth’ denied and their right to recognition and respect overruled by more powerful dominant discourses. Our main argument is that, given the centrality of communication, talk, words in social work, we have potentially great power to positively influence the promotion of epistemic justice. We have made some suggestions adapted from recommendations from participants in our study. These are far from exhaustive. As discussed earlier, social work itself has been subject to negative stereotyping and usually is perceived to occupy a relatively powerless position in relation to dominant narratives and discourses that can perpetuate discrimination. One of the ways we may be able to challenge what some perceive as an ‘oppressed image of the profession’ (Shlomo and Levin-Keini, 2021), is to engage more proactively with the public and media in relation to the promotion of more just use of language and terminology and by modelling epistemic justice in our own discourses, narratives and terminology. Also, despite a relative powerlessness amongst stronger more powerful discourses of managerialism, populism and neo-liberalism, there are many examples globally of social workers ‘rising up’ and claiming responsibility for addressing fundamental inequities especially where there is collective action and a shared clearly articulated mission. It seems that there is great potential through development of global standards and via international and regional social work organisations to pay particular attention to developing leadership in promotion of epistemic justice internationally building on work already advanced in this area especially in relation to decolonisation and promotion of indigenous knowledge and expertise. Moreover, championing and leading on the promotion of epistemic justice towards persons who experience discrimination because of use of language, terminology and representation within society, via the media, public service and wider political narratives is a responsibility for the profession as a duty bearer to promote rights and justice. It is also perhaps one of the most tangible and achievable forms of social justice that the profession can achieve globally given that the very basis of the work is built on talk, words, ideas, discourses and working in a way that challenges stigma, labelling and discrimination.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, thanks goes to all participants who contributed to this research study. Thanks also to the members of the Collaborative Forum of Former Residents of Mother and Baby Homes and related Institutions for initiating this project. Sincere thanks also to the Steering Group members, and in particular, our colleagues from the Collaborative Forum who gave their time and commitment to this project.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

Funding

The Irish Research Council (IRC) funded this research under the COALESCE Research Fund 2019, Strand 1F in collaboration with the Research and Evaluation Unit of [the then] Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA), now Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY).

References