MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214684372 · doi:10.1037/ort0000611

Developing a model of broaching and bridging in cross-cultural psychotherapy: Toward fostering epistemic and social justice.

2022· article· en· W4214684372 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eunjung Lee, Andrea Greenblatt, Ran Hu, Marjorie Johnstone, Toula Kourgiantakis

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling Practices and Supervision
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInjusticeBroachingCross-cultural psychologyPsychologySociologyTestimonialScholarshipSocial psychologyEpistemologyPsychotherapistPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epistemic and social injustice occurs when therapists implicitly and explicitly impose personal, professional, and institutional power onto clients, and dismiss client experience which is embedded in cultural identity and social location. Despite research evidence highlighting the positive impact of broaching in cross-cultural psychotherapy, questioning the rationale and barriers to broaching is paramount. Drawing from scholarship on epistemic in/justice, we argue that the very existence of marginalization of a client in the life and in the therapy exemplifies epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice bears two types-testimonial and hermeneutic injustice. When clients' experience of marginalization is decentered or discredited, testimonial injustice occurs. By not providing clients with opportunities to share this experience in therapy, there is little shared understanding cultivated in the cross-cultural dyad, contributing to hermeneutic injustice. Thus, epistemic in/justice requires broaching not as an option but as an integral part of therapy. Synthesizing scholarship in cultural competence, humility, intersectionality, and antioppressive practice, we define broaching as the therapist's tasks for intentional understanding of the cultural aspects and systemic oppression in the client's life-in-context. A therapist who is broaching is aware of cross-cultural similarities and differences and the workings of power in the therapy dyad and makes deliberate efforts to demonstrate this understanding to the client which includes explicit discussion in sessions. We propose pathways, dimensions, foci, and timing of ongoing broaching and bridging cross-cultural encounters in therapy. Lastly, we discuss the implications of broaching and bridging while situating this work as promoting epistemic and social justice in therapy encounters. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OrthopsychiatrySame topicCounseling Practices and SupervisionFrench-language works237,207