Epistemic injustice in organizations, explained simply

Epistemic injustice names the wrong done to a person in their capacity as a knower and a credible voice. This concept, still rarely used in management, illuminates dynamics that conventional DEI approaches cannot always name.

Two main forms

Philosopher Miranda Fricker, who coined the term, distinguishes two fundamental forms. The first is testimonial injustice: a person's credibility is systematically undervalued because of a prejudice tied to their identity (gender, origin, accent, appearance). The second is hermeneutical injustice: the person lacks the concepts or vocabulary to interpret and communicate their own experience, because those tools were not built with them in mind.

Concrete workplace examples

Both forms take very recognisable shapes inside organisations.

• Testimonial injustice: a racialised professional raises a safety concern in a meeting. Her remark is ignored. Five minutes later, a colleague states the same observation and gets the credit. Her identity reduced her epistemic credibility before she finished her sentence.
• Hermeneutical injustice: a first-generation professional in a white-collar environment cannot name what he experiences when informal networks treat him differently. Without a shared concept, he cannot report it and the organisation cannot recognise it.
• Both forms compounding: a Black woman in a middle-management role sees her analyses dismissed in meetings and receives no feedback on her leadership style, because no adequate evaluation criteria exist for her profile. The two injustices reinforce each other.

The link to under-representation in strategic roles

Suzie Mondésir's doctoral research draws on this concept to understand intersectional under-representation in strategic positions. When people from marginalised groups see their expertise constantly questioned, they withdraw from speaking spaces, narrow their ambitions, or leave the organisation. Under-representation at the top is then not a pipeline problem but a consequence of repeated injustices in how knowledge is shared and recognised.

To explore further, visit the DEI glossary or read the sources cited in the research section.