The main thread connecting these areas of my research is my interest in theories of discourse (i.e., theories about which forms of discourse improve the results of agents' moral, political, and scientific inquiries). Thus, my research emphasizes the importance of answering the questions: 1) What forms of discourse would improve the functioning of democracy within diverse societies? 2) What forms of discourse can ameliorate the harmful effects of problematic assumptions within scientific research? 3) What forms of discourse are capable of reducing the occurrences of epistemic injustice?

 

In both my dissertation and subsequent projects, I have sought to address these questions by focusing on the crucial role that responsiveness to the claims that others raise in discourse – and, especially, responsiveness to the claims of those who hold viewpoints that significantly diverge from one’s own – plays in justifying the conclusions that agents reach through inquiry. That is to say, I have developed accounts of what it means to be appropriately responsive within these different kinds of discourse and how doing so provides significant epistemic benefits. Moreover, I argue that being appropriately responsive will often require agents to improve the ways in which they familiarize themselves with different worldviews. In order to do so, I draw upon the strategies developed by agents living at the intersection of multiple oppressions who have been particularly successful at bringing different worldviews into critical interaction with one another.

 

I am also currently working on projects that use this account of the role of discourse in inquiry to evaluate the ethical use of AI technologies. In this work, I emphasize the importance of empathy within critical reasoning and the need for AI systems to be appropriately responsive to the dissenting opinions that have been raised by those who belong to marginalized social groups.