MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4285239716 · doi:10.1590/2526-8910.ctoed302022022

(Des)Connections between occupational justice and social justice: an interview with Gail Whitefordand Lilian Magalhães

2022· article· en· W4285239716 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniela Castro de Jong, Michael Sy, Rebecca Twinley, Kee Hean Lim, ́Patrícia Leme de Oliveira Borba

Notice bibliographique

RevueCadernos Brasileiros de Terapia Ocupacional  · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSociologyEconomic JusticeSocial justiceCriminologyPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Since its inception in the late 1990’s (Townsend & Wilcock, 2004), occupational justice has become a core concept for consideration within occupational therapy and occupational science (Durocher et al., 2014; Malfitano et al., 2016; Hammell, 2017). While the conversation surrounding occupational justice has started from the Western world, some non-Anglo-Saxon countries have been underpinning their occupational therapy practices on a concept called ‘social justice’ (Guajardo, 2021; Lopes & Malfitano, 2021).
\n
\nOccupational justice is defined as the “[...] access to and participation in the full range of meaningful and enriching occupations afforded to others, including opportunities for social inclusion and the resources to participate in occupations to satisfy personal, health, and societal needs [...]” (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2020, p. 79). On the other hand, ‘social justice’ is perceived to address “[...] important social goals, whether acting in ways that befits an equitable and compassionate world, respecting human dignity, or creating an inclusive society [...]” (Hocking, 2017, p. 29).
\n
\nThe social and occupational justice concepts have been progressively debated in the field of occupational therapy as to whether they can be realistically translated into actual practice (Guajardo, 2021; Hammell & Beagan, 2017). These debates are seen as an opportunity to further develop the mentioned concepts rather than inducing potential conflicts, hence, this Editorial aims to examine these through a reflective conversation. Furthermore, as we incorporate the debate on social justice, as we also point out the importance of taking into account the diversity of theories - concepts, ideas, and language - that inform the practices and research of occupational therapists, globally.
\n
\nBased on the relevance of these concepts, we have proposed this special issue: “Bridging critical gaps in occupational justice and social justice in occupational therapy practices”. The aims of this special issue are to demonstrate how occupational therapists globally address the rights to inclusive participation in daily life for all people and to illuminate the opportunities for occupational therapists to serve from traditional to less known areas of practice.
\n
\nThis editorial intends to ascertain the thoughts and opinions surrounding occupational justice and social justice from two experts in the field of occupational science and occupational therapy through expert interviewing, an approach to harvest knowledge and explore a concept under study (Meuser & Nagel, 2009). To do this, we invited Professors Gail Whiteford and Lilian Magalhães, to participate in a simultaneous interview. They were chosen because their research paths are related to the concepts being discussed and also because they are strategically located in different geographical places, Gail in Australia and Lilian in Brazil (she still maintains a close relationship with Canada). The interview was conducted by researchers of occupational therapy located in Chile/Australia (DCJ), Brazil (PB), and the Philippines (MS). Even though they share an interest in occupational therapy and social issues, their research has approached the topic from different perspectives.
\n
\nIn this interview, we approach the central theme of occupational justice and its relationship with the concept of social justice. Additionally, both interviewees addressed the need for a more situated historical, socio-economic, and political analyses for the use of concepts in general within the fields of occupational therapy and occupational science. We reproduced below parts of the interview transcription. Interview questions are italicized in order to differentiate it to the interviewee’s responses which are labelled ‘GW’ for Gail Whiteford and ‘LM’ for Lilian Magalhães.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,167
Tête enseignante GPT0,460
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCadernos Brasileiros de Terapia Ocupacional Même sujetOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchTravaux en français237 207