Client-Centered Practice when Professional and Social Power are Uncoupled: The Experiences of Therapists from Marginalized Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Client-centeredness is foundational to occupational therapy, yet virtually no research has examined this aspect of practice as experienced by therapists from marginalized groups. The discourse of client-centeredness implicitly assumes a “dominant-group” therapist. Professional power is assumed to be accompanied by social power and privilege. Here, we explore what happens when professional and social power are uncoupled. Method: In-depth interviews grounded in critical phenomenology were conducted with Canadian therapists (n = 20) who self-identified as disabled, minority sexual/gender identity (LGBTQ+), racialized, ethnic minority, and/or from working-class backgrounds. Iterative thematic analysis employed constant comparison using ATLAS.ti for team coding. Results: Clients mobilized social power conveying direct and indirect hostility toward the therapists. Clients used social power to undermine the professional credentials and competence of the therapists. In turn, the therapists strove to balance professional and social power, when possible disclosing marginalized identities only when beneficial to therapy. Strongly endorsing client-centered principles, the therapists faced considerable tension regarding how to respond to client hostility. Conclusions: The discourse of client-centeredness ignores the realities of marginalized therapists for whom professional power is not accompanied by social power. Better conceptualizing client-centeredness requires shifting the discourse to address practice dilemmas distinct to marginalized therapists working with clients who actively mobilize systemic oppression.
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 | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".