Embracing Multiple Philosophical Orientations in Occupational Therapy to Enhance Cultural Sensitivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The philosophical foundations of occupational therapy, originating in North America, primarily align with American philosophy, which leads to challenges when occupational therapy is applied in diverse cultural contexts. The occupational therapy profession needs to embrace multiple philosophical orientations to enhance cultural sensitivity. In this column, the authors use postcolonial theory to analyze colonial legacies and power dynamics within communities, highlighting the limitations of current Western-based adaptations in promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and accessibility. They argue that incorporating diverse philosophical orientations into occupational therapy can enrich the field by fostering adaptability and inclusivity. They also outline steps to integrate multiple philosophical orientations, including acknowledging historical influences and adopting practices that resonate with diverse values. Embracing multiple philosophical orientations signifies the profession's commitment to evolving and responding effectively to the complex needs of individuals and communities, thereby promoting more equitable and just outcomes in occupational therapy practice. Positionality Statement: The authors of this column include a Ghanaian nondisabled occupational therapist who studied and practiced occupational therapy in Ghana, West Africa, and the United States; a White, nondisabled, female Canadian occupational therapy scholar with practice experience across numerous international contexts; and an Asian, nondisabled, female occupational therapy scholar who has occupational therapy practice experience in both Asia and the United States. All three authors currently live and work in the United States. They drew from their personal experiences, knowledge of the profession, research evidence, and critical reasoning to conceptualize this column.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".