A Critical Interrogation of Inclusion in the Context of Residential Service Provision for Persons with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an occupationally just context, people can experience social inclusion through enablement of occupation. Thus, social housing provision has power to shape occupational possibilities and inclusion of residents. Despite the goals of deinstitutionalization, persons with developmental disabilities continue to experience social exclusion (e.g., in terms of quality/quantity of available social housing). In Ontario, Canada, thousands of persons with developmental disabilities are inadequately housed. In order to surface occupational injustices experienced by persons with developmental disabilities in social housing, I adopted a critical occupational science (COS) approach to consider discourses (e.g. what is said) and practices (e.g., what is done) that constitute an ‘inclusive home’. I aimed to problematize inclusion shaped and was shaped within the situation (i.e., sociopolitical, economic, cultural, and material) of residential service provision in Ontario by considering the complex transactions amongst discourses about inclusion, everyday practices, and macro-level forces.I conducted a community-based, multimethod qualitative study. I interviewed 9 agency directors from five housing agencies and 18 residents with developmental disabilities across 14 residences. Each resident was interviewed twice using participatory (i.e., go along and photo elicitation) methods. In Session 1, we toured their residence while I interviewed them about daily life and how they are or want to be included in it (or not) and took photos with them. In Session 2, we explored the photos to deepen conversations about inclusion and home. Interview data (N= 42.5 hours) were audio recorded, transcribed, and abductively coded. Drawing on COS, I wrote analytic summaries for each participant to ‘interrogate’ the data with problematizing questions. I attended to rigour through prolonged engagement, multiple data sources, and extensive field/reflexive memos. I linked participant accounts to five interlinked dimensions of inclusion (Mainstream to Specific; Far from to Near Others; Private to Collective; Transient to Stable; and Unsupported to Supervised) each of which had effects on inclusion (e.g., through available resources and practices). At one extreme, the accounts echoed neoliberal notions of personal responsibility and individualism. At the other extreme, the accounts included types of resistance about intentional community and disabled spaces. From these accounts, I interpreted an inclusive home as accommodating diverse needs through spatial flexibility, balancing private/communal spaces, intentionally considering disability-specific needs/choices, and having stable connections to meaningful community networks that may open up occupational possibilities for residents through inclusion. These culminated in five principles of an inclusive home: Fluidity of Design, Flexibility of Space, Proximity to the Centre, Stable Connections to Varied and Active Networks, and Building Opportunities for Active Involvement of Residents in Housing Planning. By applying the socially transformative COS lens, these findings contribute to a richer understanding of assumptions and ideologies that underlie occupation in residential service provision for persons with developmental disabilities, and potentially, other disabled populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".