“Is that my agenda or is that serving the client?”: Perspectives of Social Justice-Oriented Counsellors on Working with Clients Who Express Oppressive Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current North American public discourse is strongly influenced by widespread sociopolitical divide. Given that sociopolitical events seem to permeate conversations in the therapy room (Farber, 2018; MacLeod, 2013), it is essential that therapists are prepared to navigate conversations with clients who have beliefs different from their own. This qualitative study explored the experiences of Canadian social justice-oriented counsellors who have worked with clients with oppressive views. Seven counsellors were interviewed about their experiences of working with oppression in the therapy room. Through qualitative content analysis, informed by a phenomenological approach, five core themes emerged: effect of personal identities, determination of therapist’s responsibilities, strategies for working with oppressive views, influence of career contexts, and impact of response on client. This study’s findings provide a nuanced representation of what it is like to work with clients’ oppressive views and highlight a wide range of experiences among therapists navigating this ethically complex work.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".