ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Fair foundations: ensuring epistemic justice in neurodiversity research and practice.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The participation of neurodivergent employees can meaningfully enhance organizational effectiveness - but only when the research and practices that shape workplaces are built on accurate, community-grounded knowledge. This paper develops a perspective that epistemic justice, the recognition of individuals and communities as experts on their own experience, is both an ethical practice and, but a prerequisite for beneficial neurodiversity research and implementation. Epistemic injustice foundational framework that includes testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, this paper extends the concept to propose appropriative injustice, defined as the extraction of community knowledge without attribution or benefit. It further explores how testimonial, hermeneutical, and appropriative justice could operate across the full research-to-practice pipeline and offers concrete, stage-by-stage guidance for graduate educators, researchers, journal editors, practitioners, and organizational leaders who want their work to be both rigorous and just.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.