Asian Canadian Therapists’ Experience and Coping with Racial Microaggression: A Qualitative Examination with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While studies have shown that racial microaggressions are common and recurring experiences for racial minority therapists, Asians are underrepresented in the existing research. The present study examined Asian Canadian therapists’ lived experiences with racial microaggressions and their coping responses in clinical practice and professional settings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted through the online Microsoft Teams platform with nine Asian therapists. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Two relevant superordinate themes emerged from the analysis. The first, “encountering the complexities of microaggressions,” illustrated participants’ experiences with different forms of microaggressions, demonstrating their ambiguity and their long-lasting impacts on participants. Under the second superordinate theme, “navigating the quandaries of microaggressions,” participants showed hesitancy in addressing microaggressions with the aggressors. However, when the client-therapist relationship was strong, it was shown that broaching microaggressions with clients may result in therapeutic change. Some participants also identified benefits in addressing microaggressions with their coworkers and, when handled with caution, with supervisors. Despite facing challenges, participants were proud of their Asian heritage and the opportunity to contribute their cultural knowledge in clinical practice. The study highlights a variety of ways organizations can create a safe environment for minority therapist staff. It also stresses the importance of minority therapists seeking social support, and advocating for themselves, when facing microaggressions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".