Technocratic promises of neutrality obscure how public administration privileges certain knowers. Combining epistemic justice with postmodern critique, I frame testimonial and hermeneutical injustices as failures of institutional design rather than inevitable power effects. Drawing on cases from nutrition clinics, contracted participation, and citizens’ assemblies, I demonstrate how routine administrative discourse can entrench or reduce credibility gaps, while deliberative forums, facilitation and translation tools, and organisational training grounded in reflexive judgement and care offer pathways to more inclusive governance.
DryzekJ. S. (2006). Deliberative global politics: Discourse and democracy in a divided world. Polity Press.
4.
FarmerD. J. (1995). The language of public administration: Bureaucracy, modernity, and post-modernity. University of Alabama Press.
5.
FischerF. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford University Press.
6.
FrickerM. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
7.
FrickerM. (2017). Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice. In KiddI. J.MedinaJ.PohlhausG.Jr. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice (pp. 53–60). Routledge.
8.
HallingA.BaekgaardM. (2024). Administrative burden in citizen–state interactions: A systematic literature review. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad023
9.
HandL. C. (2019). A virtuous hearer: An exploration of epistemic injustice and an ethic of care in public encounters. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43(1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1700457
10.
LevinL. (2023). Contracting out public participation to external consultants: Observations on epistemic justice. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13517
11.
LorenziniD. (2022). Reason versus power: Genealogy, critique, and epistemic injustice. The Monist, 105(4), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onac016
12.
MastracciS. H. (2021). Dirty work and emotional labor in public service: Why government employers should adopt an ethic of care. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(3), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X21997548
MillerH. T.FoxC. J. (1995). Post-modern public administration: Toward discourse. M. E. Sharpe.
15.
OECD. (2024). Exploring new frontiers of citizen participation in the policy cycle: Discussion paper. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
16.
SchmidtE. (2024). Epistemic injustice in deliberative mini publics. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 20(1), Article 1493. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1493
17.
SpicerM. W. (2015). Public administration in a disenchanted world: Reflections on Max Weber’s value pluralism and his views on politics and bureaucracy. Administration & Society, 47(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714554514
18.
WhiteJ. D. (1986). On the growth of knowledge in public administration. Public Administration Review, 46(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/975438
19.
YanowD.Schwartz-SheaP. (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. M. E. Sharpe.
20.
YoungI. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
