Exploring Coloniality in Occupation-Based Education: Perspectives of Ghanaian Occupational Therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history, scope, and practice of occupational therapy are taught in many parts of the world using western perspectives. Recently, occupational scientists have explored occupation-based education, including the extent to which occupation is central in occupational therapy programs and the mechanisms of teaching occupation. This study explores how western ideologies have influenced occupation-based education in Ghana by examining the teaching and practice of occupational therapy. We conducted a qualitative study using purposive sampling to recruit four participants from the first four cohorts of practitioners. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Our analysis yielded three main themes: Power, participants described power dynamics inside and outside the field of occupational therapy that influenced how occupational therapy was taught and practiced in Ghana; Knowledge, participants described the focus of the foundational knowledge they received as largely theoretical, with limited practical knowledge of the Ghanaian context; Being, participants described how their experiences shaped their occupational identities. Additional themes included: Globalization and Cultural Assimilation, and Occupational Consciousness. Occupational therapists in Ghana are directly affected by the systemic injustices that have plagued their communities since the colonial era. Their existence in a formerly colonized country affects how much they can pursue personal and professional interests. Practitioners and scholars from formerly colonized and marginalized groups need to be empowered to embrace their identities and practice meaningfully. The ‘burden’ of decolonizing occupation-based education should not be left to the ex-colonized because coloniality goes beyond the scope of occupational science and occupational therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".