Pedagogical institutions, particularly schools, should not be understood merely as physical sites where knowledge and skills are formally transmitted through curricula. Rather, they operate as social and institutional environments in which values, norms, and beliefs are conveyed to successive generations through both explicit instruction and the hidden curriculum. From a feminist perspective, the hidden curriculum and routine pedagogical practices convey unwritten rules concerning gendered expectations and socially sanctioned roles. These norms are reinforced through existing power structures and become normalized within society. Empirical research demonstrates persistent gender-based disadvantages across educational contexts. Studies indicate that male students speak 1.6 times more frequently than female students, interrupt at rates up to fifteen times higher, and tend to use assertive language, whereas women often employ hesitant and apologetic speech (Lee & McCabe, 2020). Moreover, educational materials similarly reproduce gendered representations; for example, medical training texts often portray women as caregivers and nurses and men as doctors and administrators (Arsever et al., 2023), while in engineering, women report experiences of social isolation, condescension and sexist discourse masked as humour (Harris, 2025). As a result of all these studies, it has been emphasized that women face negative outcomes such as professional inadequacy, silencing, decreased performance, and a weakened sense of belonging.

Feminist perspectives grounded in Marxist analyses argue that knowledge production is not neutral but is deeply embedded in relations of power, privilege, and politics (Tuana, 2017). Fricker (2007) distinguishes between between (i)testimonial injustice, which occurs when a speaker’s credibility is unfairly undermined due to prejudice, and (ii)hermeneutical injustice, which arises when individuals lack the conceptual resources necessary to interpret and articulate their experiences. In educational contexts, these forms of injustice shape whose knowledge is recognized and whose experiences are rendered unintelligible or invisible. Analysing education through the framework of epistemic injustice enables critical examination of authority relations in teacher–student interactions, the role of curricular choices in reproducing inequality, and the pedagogical consequences of prejudice in classrooms. It also raises ethical questions regarding how educators can protect students’ epistemic agency while maintaining academic standards (Kotzee, 2017).

Accountability-driven evaluation practices within education systems further exacerbate these injustices by marginalizing teachers who successfully engage with historically disadvantaged students in low socioeconomic contexts. Over time, this exclusion produces cumulative harm conceptualized as “slow violence” that undermines the professional identities and leadership aspirations of women and minorities, thereby limiting diversity within the teaching profession (Bernard et al., 2023). Consequently, understanding how pre-service teachers’ past experiences of testimonial and hermeneutical injustice shape their professional identity formation and perceptions of educational leadership is critically important. The literature emphasizes the need for more studies that examine epistemic injustice in teacher education within local contexts (Babu et al., 2025; Bernard et al., 2023; Kotzee, 2017) and through an intersectional framework (Anyango et al., 2026; Tuana, 2017). Addressing this gap, the present study adopts an intersectional framework focusing on gender, disability, and socioeconomic status. Specifically, the study critically examines the antecedents and consequences of epistemic injustice experienced by pre-service teachers throughout their educational trajectories, from primary education to higher education, from a feminist and intersectional perspective. The study seeks to answer the following sub-questions:

Q1. Which curricular contents (formal, hidden, and null curricula) and pedagogical practices encountered in pre-service teachers’ prior educational experiences hindered their capacity to act as knowledge producers?

Q2. How do the intersection of disability status, and social status besides gender shape pre-service teachers’ contributions to knowledge production?

Q3. How do experiences of epistemic injustice influence pre-service teachers’ personal, academic and professional development?

Q4. What kinds of resistance strategies have pre-service teachers developed in response to epistemic injustice pressures?

Given the study’s focus on meaning-making of pre-service teachers’ experiences and on revealing their connections to structural power relations, a qualitative feminist biographical narrative research design was employed. Within this design, participants’ educational life stories were examined through temporal and contextual lenses. Purposeful sampling was used, specifically the maximum variation strategy. Crenshaw (1992), who introduced the concept of intersectionality, argues that single-axis analyses of gender or race are insufficient for explaining experienced inequalities and that their combined consideration enables the identification of distinct dynamics. To ensure intersectionality, twelve Turkish students from different grade levels were selected, representing diversity in gender (women and men), disability status (visual and physical disabilities), and social class (e.g., poor and affluent backgrounds, geographically disadvantaged and advantaged regions). Data were collected over the course of one academic term, allowing sufficient time to establish trust-based relationships with participants. In the first phase of data collection, in-depth individual interviews were conducted to gather participants’ educational life stories. Participants were asked questions such as: “Can you share an instance in which you were not taken seriously by your teachers or peers regarding something you claimed to know?” and “Have you ever felt that textbooks lacked representations of your lifestyle, culture, or gender? How did this make you feel?” These questions aimed to identify critical moments in participants’ educational trajectories. Another data collection method involved ‘reflective journals’ kept by participants. They were asked to document moments during the research period in which they felt unheard, ignored, or not taken seriously in class, as well as moments in which they felt valued and empowered. Finally, focus group interviews were conducted to explore the structural dimensions underlying individual narratives. Conducting focus groups with participants who shared similar identities functioned not only as a data collection strategy but also as a collective meaning-making process that encouraged participants to interpret injustices as systemic and structural rather than overly personalized experiences. Data were analyzed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The dataset was read in detail, codes were generated, categories were formed, and themes were developed. These themes were interpreted in relation to the framework of epistemic injustice, with intersectional considerations such as being both disabled and female, or being poor and male (particularly when not conforming to hegemonic masculinity expectations), taken into account.

The findings indicate that teachers who adhere to traditional educational approaches emphasize their authoritative position in the classroom and systematically disregard or devalue the knowledge production capacities of students from disadvantaged groups. The findings further demonstrate that teachers who do not assume responsibility for promoting gender equality actively contribute to the formation of a “chilly climate” within classrooms. Gender stereotypes are reproduced through teacher–student interaction patterns, the selection of instructional materials, and the structuring of curricular content. The systematic underrepresentation or exclusion of women and people with disabilities in course materials and classroom discourse constrains students’ opportunities to engage in knowledge production and meaning-making processes. Moreover, the exclusion of marginalized students’ cultural and local knowledge reduces epistemic diversity, while the hidden curriculum reinforces normalized behaviors and marginalizes those who deviate from dominant norms. From an intersectional perspective, the findings reveal that students who occupy multiple marginalized positions such as being both female and disabled experience distinct and compounded forms of epistemic injustice. Educational systems that fail to recognize and respond to these voices perpetuate hermeneutical injustice by denying individuals access to the interpretive resources necessary to understand and articulate their experiences. A study conducted with medical students (Blalock & Leal, 2022) highlights how participants resisted injustice by redefining their presence in the field, critiquing the curriculum, raising their voices, and supporting one another. Overall, the findings suggest that fostering awareness of epistemic injustice within teacher education programs particularly through collaborative and dialogical learning practices supports the development of resistance strategies and enables pre-service teachers to reconstruct their professional identities as “knowing subjects.” Such approaches contribute to challenging dominant power relations in knowledge production and promoting more inclusive educational leadership practices.

Anyango, C., Goicolea, I., Lövgren, V., & Namatovu, F. (2025). ‘The feeling that I’m unimportant’: epistemic injustice lens on formal support for women with disabilities survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1-18. Arsever, S., Broers, B., Cerutti, B., Wiesner, J., & Dao, M. D. (2023). A gender biased hidden curriculum of clinical vignettes in undergraduate medical training. Patient Education and Counselling, 116, 107934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2023.107934 Babu, Y., Mishra, P., Kumar, A., Pandey, C. S., & Pandey, S. (2025). Epistemic injustices andcurriculum: Strategizing for justice. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101220.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101220 Bernard, C. F., Kaufman, D., Kohan, M., & Mitoma, G. (2023). edTPA implications for teachereducation policy and practice: Representations of epistemic injustice and slowviolence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31, 1-27. Blalock, A. E., & Leal, D. R. (2022). Redressing injustices: how women students enact agencyin undergraduate medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education (2023 28: 741–758 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10183-x Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Researchin Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Crenshaw, K. (1992). Race, gender, and sexual harassment. Southern California Law Review, 65, 1467-1476. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford universitypress. Harris, D. (2025). The hidden curriculum: gender, bias and banter in first-year engineeringeducation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1-19.https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2586131 Kotzee, B. (2017). Education and epistemic injustice. In The Routledge handbook of epistemicinjustice (Eds. I.J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus, Jr.) (pp. 324-335). Routledge. Lee, J. J., & Mccabe, J. M. (2021). Who speaks and who listens: Revisiting the chilly climatein college classrooms. Gender & society, 35(1),32-60. DOI:10.1177/0891243220977141 Tuana, N. (2017). Feminist epistemology: The subject of knowledge. In The Routledgehandbook of epistemic injustice (Eds. I.J. Kidd, J. Medina, & G. Pohlhaus, Jr.) (pp. 125138). Routledge.