Beyond inclusion: collective social spaces of safety, communion, and recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper unsettles taken-for-granted understandings of social inclusion in the field of occupational therapy and links with the concept of radical inclusion developed in social occupational therapy. It traces the ways that, over time, inclusion has been reduced to a position within the inclusion/exclusion binary. Pierre Bourdieu’s reflexive theory of practice is introduced to expand understandings of how the negative value accorded to disability is reproduced through exclusionary social conditions and relations. Drawing on the results of a qualitative study that examined the everyday lives, practices and occupations of 13 Canadian youth who used augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) modes as a result of physical impairments, three elements of more inclusive social spaces - safety, communion, and recognition - are presented alongside implications of each for occupational therapy. These alternative approaches for thinking beyond inclusion are grounded by narratives illustrating elements of social spaces that can foster a sense of belonging and connection. The perspectives shared by youth in the study add complex insights into how they made ‘practical sense’ of prevailing calls for social inclusion. Their stories show how even as they struggled for inclusion, they were subject to and internalized negative valuations of disability. Importantly, the paper highlights strategies employed by youth to reformulate inclusion on their own terms. These reformulations go beyond over-simplified conceptions of inclusion and hold potential to inform the ways that occupational therapists work alongside individuals and collectives to improve life chances, expand occupational possibilities, and support flourishing for disabled children and youth.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".