Developing a model of broaching and bridging in cross-cultural psychotherapy: Toward fostering epistemic and social justice.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it