Systemic Racism in Canadian Occupational Therapy: A Qualitative Study with Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Research on racism within occupational therapy is scant, though there are hints that racialized therapists struggle. Purpose. This paper examines experiences of racism in occupational therapy, including coping strategies and resistance. Method. Ten therapists from racialized groups (not including Indigenous peoples) were recruited for cross-Canada, in-person or telephone interviews. Transcripts were coded and inductively analysed, with data thematically organized by types of racism and responses. Findings. Interpersonal racism involving clients, students, colleagues and managers is supported by institutional racism when incidents of racism are met with inaction, and racialized therapists are rarely in leadership roles. Structural racism means the experiences of racialized people are negated within the profession. Cognitive sense-making becomes a key coping strategy, especially when resistance is costly. Implications. Peer supports and community building among racialized therapists may be beneficial, but dismantling structures of racism demands interrogating how whiteness is built into business-as-usual in occupational therapy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".