Conceptual review explores social transformation in occupational science and therapy, suggesting critical dialogue for equity.
Social transformation has been forwarded as a concept that can enhance the social responsiveness of occupational science and occupational therapy. This paper presents the findings of a conceptual review addressing how social transformation has been taken up in both fields. In stage one, we analyzed framings of social transformation in 26 peer-reviewed English, Portuguese, or Spanish-language articles published from 1997 to 2024. In stage two, we held three dialogue groups with eight article authors to critically reflect on conceptual review findings and further discuss the uptake of social transformation. A multi-phase analysis of articles and dialogue transcripts generated four threads: understanding social transformation as a constellation of ideas and practices; generating connecting ideas with space for diverse expressions and points of differentiation; the necessity of transforming occupational science and occupational therapy; and mobilizing social transformation as an ongoing dialogical space. These threads formed a tapestry of social transformation as an expressed commitment to enacting a collective process of working with groups that endure social inequities, with an aim of transforming social elements to create more equitable conditions and expand everyday possibilities for participation. Grounded in the recognition that critical reflexivity is vital for aligning concepts with intentions, these findings underscore the importance of contextually relevant understandings of social transformation, along with critical reflexivity and transparency regarding theoretical underpinnings, contextual considerations, and resultant practices. Future work, including ongoing egalitarian dialogue, is needed to deeply engage with critically informed theories and commit to an anti-oppressive positioning within the uptake of social transformation concepts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rudman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: