(Des)Connections between occupational justice and social justice: an interview with Gail Whitefordand Lilian Magalhães
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".