Axiology Clinic is a space for work that treats value, relation, and responsibility as forms of method. We begin from the premise that knowledge is not neutral—it is shaped by who is present, what histories guide the conversation, what forms of evidence are recognized, and what kinds of care are possible. The Clinic exists to think, make, and inquire in ways that honour this complexity.
Our work moves through three overlapping modes: community-based work, evidence synthesis, and research-creation. Each mode brings distinct lineages and articulations of practice; together they form a methodology that can sit with questions that are ethical, systemic, embodied, and unresolved.
Community work is the grounding of our practice. We attend to the knowledge that emerges from lived experience, collective memory, and the daily improvisations of care. This is not consultation; it is relational work that makes space for stories, frictions, inheritances, and the wisdom that comes from being in place.
We assemble and synthesize evidence across multiple epistemic lineages, through traditional scientific methods such as: scoping reviews, qualitative systematic reviews, and evidence-and-gap maps.
Our work aims to aggregate scientific literature, community-held knowledge, disability and Mad archives, oral history, system-level data, lived experience, and embodied understanding.
Evidence synthesis for us responds to the question: what do different forms of knowing illuminate or obscure when held beside each other? And what might that make possible in the world?
Research-creation gives us methods for making meaning beyond the limits of linear analysis. We use narrative, image, performance, speculative design, and other creative forms to ask questions, surface tensions, and make visible what does not always register in conventional research. Creativity is not ornamental here; it is epistemologically generative.
Axiology provides the outer orientation for everything we do: it is the study of value, meaning, and relational ethics. It asks how value is assigned, by whom, and through what histories and power relations. Axiology helps us examine not only what is considered evidence or impact, but why. It reminds us that choices about method, narrative, and system design are grounded in values—named or unnamed—and that any practice of care or knowledge-making is always an ethical practice. Through axiology, we attend to the conditions that shape responsibility, reciprocity, dignity, and the quality of relation across bodyminds, communities, and systems.
Within that axiological orientation, Disability Justice provides a set of commitments and refusals that guide our practice. Disability Justice names interdependence as a strength, not a liability; understands access as collective rather than individual; resists the extraction and disposability that underpin many institutional structures; and insists that no bodymind is outside the circle of concern. It calls us to attend to histories of harm, to patterns of invisibility, to survivorship, and to the everyday forms of creativity and resistance that disabled, Mad, and chronically ill people enact. Disability Justice does not stabilize our methods—it unsettles them in ways that expand what counts as knowledge, who counts as a knower, and how care becomes possible.
The inner layer of our framework is the lived landscape of healthcare: policy, practice, clinical cultures, educational systems, histories of institutionalization, and the infrastructures through which care is imagined and delivered. Healthcare is not a neutral or singular domain—it is an ecosystem of value decisions, constraints, accountability structures, and inherited logics. It is also a site where people experience care, harm, connection, and disconnection in immediate ways. This context matters because it is where questions of value are not only theorized but lived, felt, and contested in real time.
Together, these layers form an ecology of practice:
Axiology orients us toward value and relation.
Disability Justice shapes our commitments and our refusals.
Healthcare provides the material terrain where these commitments must act.
Holding all three allows us to see how knowledge is made, how meaning circulates, how systems are organized, and how care is structured—not as abstract concepts, but as lived realities shaped by power, history, and interdependence.
This layered framework ensures that our work remains relational, accountable, and attentive to the worlds in which it intervenes.