Governing the Majority World? Critical reflections on the role of occupation technology in international contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within occupational therapy, increasing attention has been focussed on international development work. However, many have critiqued the focus of knowledge development within occupational therapy and occupational science, arguing that it is focussed on Western values. Questions arise about how occupational therapy and occupational science, and the knowledge and therapeutic technologies that are associated with these communities, will affect the 'developing' world, which, recently, some have described as the Majority World. AIM AND METHOD: Using Foucauldian analytical tools, this paper reflects on specific discourses that are foundational for development work. Specifically, this paper attempts to better understand how concepts like 'occupational justice' and the 'occupational being' are presented in the literature and relate to practices in international contexts. Within this analysis, attention is focussed on how practices associated with occupational development work might also be enmeshed in power dynamics. RESULTS: This paper outlines how occupational discourses may shape and order life in particular ways and challenges researchers and practitioners to develop a better understanding of how power can operate through occupational discourses and occupational therapy practices. This paper also adds to the literature through the interpretation and explication of various theories that may underpin work in international contexts. CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Suggestions for future directions that will enable the development of more politically and culturally sensitive knowledge and practices are also explored. It is crucial that as a community we become more aware of how our theoretical frameworks may impact and shape practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".