(Des)Connections between occupational justice and social justice: an interview with Gail Whitefordand Lilian Magalhães
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».