Utility of science, technology and innovation governance for occupational discourses from the perspective of occupational therapy students

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Science, technology and innovation (STI) governance concerns itself with the societal impact of STI. Occupation, whether used with the meaning of paid, unpaid work or any activity that is considered meaningful to the individual on an everyday basis is one area of societal impact of STI. Fields such as occupational therapy, occupational science and occupational health and safety concern themselves with the relationship between occupation and the health and well-being of human beings albeit all with different foci. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the knowledge of student from two Occupational Therapy programs on STI governance, specific STI products and their views on the impact of STI governance and STI products on occupational therapy and its clients. METHODS: Online survey employing Yes/No' questions with comment boxes and openended textbox questions. Descriptive quantitative and thematic qualitative data was generated RESULTS: Students were unfamiliar with STI governance discourses but felt that they should be aware of them. Students stated that how one governs STI impacts occupational therapy on all levels and that the occupational therapy community has expertise that would enrich STI governance discourses around occupation. CONCLUSION: Education actions seem to be warranted on the level of students and practitioners by the occupational therapy and STI governance communities.

Brain-Computer Interfaces, Inclusive Innovation, and the Promise of Restoration: A Mixed-Methods Study with Rehabilitation Professionals

“…They also reacted with ambivalence, citing concern towards a wide range of issues in BCI ethics (e.g., misuse of data), even withholding a recommendation of the technology to their clients. These findings seem to echo another recent survey of occupational therapists in training (Djebrouni et al 2019). Yet, despite similarities between professionals and other publics, a commitment to STS constructivism discourages universalizing the abstract idea of BCIs in society but to ask how and for whom such understandings come about?…”

“…have noted, such collaborations should be situated within a broad institutionalization of "governance of ability expectations" in technology development, including changes in professional training (Djebrouni et al 2019;Wolbring and Diep 2016). Otherwise, harmful assumptions about the disabled subject's rights, responsibilities, and overall place in a technological society may counteract the promised benefit of "inclusive" innovation practices.…”

“…In Canada and many other countries, longterm treatment of paralysis and several other conditions targeted by BCIs is not usually handled by neural engineers or any of the aforementioned groups but rather by clinical practitioners in rehabilitation-related fields. Although investigated by only a few studies, the collective attitudes of rehabilitation professionals towards emerging assistive technologies are consequential for the social dynamics of BCI use (Boehlen and Sample 2020;Djebrouni et al 2019). Professionals in this area typically promote interventions designed to maximize participation in meaningful activities and subjective quality of life; this can often take the form of restoring disabled persons to "normality" and independent function, or, when this is not possible, to restore the person to a state that is as close to "normality" and independence as possible (Gibson and Teachman 2012;Hammell 2010).…”

Influencing discussions and use of neuroadvancements: Perspectives of Canadian occupational therapists

“…Given role theory, this role expectation of OTs should shape OTs' own expectations of what roles they are to fill [90]. Stakeholder engagement is one focus of discussions within neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses [5,13,15,57] and OTs have a stake in NA due to the impact of NA on occupation and their field [2,[20][21][22][29][30][31] and their exposure to NA [16-19, 23, 35-40]. However, literature does not exist that looks at OTs as stakeholders in neuroethics and neurogovernance discourses.…”

“…We chose for our study a qualitative design [91] using semi-structured interviews developed by the researchers. A qualitative design is most appropriate because the topic covered by the research questions has not been engaged with in relation to OTs so far, although one study investigated the views of OT students on the topic of OTs and science and technology governance [21], and because we want an in-depth understanding of OTs' views and experiences [91]. This is something that cannot be done by quantitative methods.…”