Using a critical occupational perspective to locate – and begin to fill – “cracks” in public policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topic: Public policies in North America are constructed according to a market view of society wherein individuals are reduced to classifications or definitions that can be easily grouped and governed (Stone, 2012). In these policies, there is an increasing emphasis on citizens’ moral obligations to achieve self-sufficiency through contributions to the market (Schram et al., 2010). The economics-based approach to policy trades holism for categorization and equates work with societal participation, fostering exclusion when people’s situations do not fit neatly within these pre-defined boxes. Attending to public policy requires complicating its application and understanding how policy mandates are negotiated and achieved. If occupational scientists aim to shape public policy, they must grapple with the contributions that a holistic occupational perspective can make within the market-based policy arena, as well as the potential impacts of scholarship that examines the implications of policy for service provision and everyday life.\nPurpose: The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the occupational perspective can expose, explain, and begin to fill “cracks” in public policies that purport to support citizens’ everyday lives and societal participation. A pair of presenters from the United States and Canada will present their research about unemployment to highlight the contributions that an occupational lens can make to various policy discussions.\nMethods: The presenters will discuss the elements of their multi-sited research, including the multiple perspectives within the policy arena that they are trying to understand through collaborative ethnography (Lassiter, 2005) and situational analysis (Clarke, Friese, & Washburn, 2015).\nIntent: The presenters will identify how their research a) addresses specific public policy issues, b) generates knowledge about how policies are “made” through front-line service provision (Lipsky, 1980/2010), c) illustrates the complexities of occupation that are obscured in market-based policy approaches, and d) demonstrates that a focus on everyday occupation illuminates the supports and tensions that issue from policy mandates. Attendees will gain insights into the potential policy contributions that stem from critical occupational science research. Based on these insights, attendees will have a foundation for identifying other social needs and policy initiatives that can be critiqued and enhanced through occupational science research.\nImportance to occupational science: This presentation will generate concrete ideas for analyzing and influencing public policy from an occupational perspective. It is important for occupational scientists to understand how public policy can be a vehicle for impacting occupational engagement at community and societal levels.\nObjectives for discussion period: What kinds of data are useful to service providers and policy makers? What is the cost of neglecting occupational needs in public policies? What forms of knowledge mobilization can be used to transform service provision and influence public policies?
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 | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".