A Tribute to Dr Ann Wilcock

In this special issue of the Journal of Occupational Science we mark the passing of the journal’s founder, Dr Ann Allart Wilcock (nee Ellison) [1940-2019]. Amongst Ann’s many scholarly contributions to knowledge, the most profound emanated from hearing the concept ‘occupational science’ in the discipline’s very early days. A science of occupation made implicit and immediate sense to her, becoming the lens through which she viewed all aspects of human life and its impact on planet earth. Indeed, an occupational perspective pervaded her understanding of the lives of all sentient beings, as well as the machinations of human evolution, society, politics, economics, and the combined efforts of the World Health Organization and United Nations to improve the state of people’s health and well-being.

Occupational science was to become the focus for Ann’s educational leadership (Townsend & Hocking, 2018), her doctoral research in the field of population health (Wilcock, 1998), and her historical research tracing the connections western societies had made between health and people’s everyday occupations (Wilcock, 2001, 2002). Ann will perhaps be best remembered for two things. First, her catch cry: doing, being, belonging, and becoming (Wilcock & Hocking, 2015). These concepts encompass the experience of everyday occupation as an integrated whole, while offering a theoretical perspective of the multiple ways the things we do influence biological, spiritual, and social well-being. Second, the concept of occupational justice. This idea was sparked in interaction with Dr Elizabeth Townsend, who was exploring issues of social justice. From what proved to be a very powerful meeting of minds, occupational injustices were named as occupational deprivation, occupational imbalance, occupational marginalisation, and occupational alienation (Wilcock & Townsend, 2000).

Fittingly, the issue begins with a celebration of Ann’s contribution to occupational science, written by two of the many people who have been inspired by, drawn from, and contributed to her scholarship (Hocking & Townsend, 2020). This is a call to action; a call to further Ann’s pioneering work in expanding knowledge of the occupational nature of human beings, of the indivisible relationship of occupation and health, and the inequitable ways occupation is organised within human societies – ensuring comfort and well-being for some and deprivation, stunted development, and shortened lifespans for others. There is much to research and much to do if we are to move closer to ensuring people lead their lives in ways that are consistent with our species nature. The articles that follow illustrate and amplify the message that occupation is at the heart of many issues facing contemporary societies.

One pressing social issue is illicit drug taking. This issue of JOS contains three papers on this topic. Sy, Bontje, Ohshima, and Kiepek (2020) report a study of drug taking in the Philippines, where the social consequences of being associated with this activity are life threatening. Viewed from the perspective of occupational form, function, and meaning, however, drug use can be otherwise interpreted as enabling users to conform to closely held cultural values of enhanced work productivity and economic participation. This alternate reading of engagement in a non-sanctioned occupation propelled the authors to call for urgently needed research in that context, and a re-visioning of the governmental response towards drug rehabilitation and occupational justice for Filipino citizens. In an invited commentary on this paper, Twinley and Castro de Jong (2020) express their appreciation of studies such as this, designed to shed light on occupations (and the people who engage in them) that government agents and mainstream society revile as deviant, risky, health damaging, or dirty. As Twinley has previously argued (2017), leaving some occupations beyond the realms of occupational science is to perpetuate misunderstanding and misinterpretation, thus jeopardising occupational scientists’ claim of generating knowledge of the form, function, and meaning of the diverse things people do. These discussions are complemented by Gish, Kiepek, and Beagan’s (2020) study of methamphetamine use among gay men. These authors convey a nuanced, non-judgmental account of the multiple motivations, contextual influences, perceived benefits, and harm management strategies employed by these men. The authors offer us a rare insight into the occupational form, which neither sensationalises the occupation nor ignores the potential risks.

Contrasting with these accounts of engagement in non-sanctioned occupations, Morrison, Araya, Del Valle, Vidal, and Silva (2020) consider the experience of same-sex couples actively excluded from parenting occupations by legislative frameworks that bar same-sex marriage in Chile. The political and sociocultural conditions surrounding LGTBI people effectively eliminate all legal options for them becoming parents, even while many other countries have removed the barriers. The discussion, framed within a human rights discourse, presents qualitative evidence of discrimination and exclusion. Continuing the journal’s commitment to facilitating access to occupational science, Morrison and colleague’s paper is also published in Spanish. A counterpoint to their study is found in Krishnagiri’s (2020) review of an edited book, Intimate Relationships and Social Change: The Dynamic Nature of Dating, Mating, and Coupling, which reports research conducted with heterosexual couples.

Social interaction and social participation are the subject of the following three papers. Eklund and Tjörnstrand (2020) surveyed 155 people with severe psychiatric disabilities who lived in supported housing in Sweden, to explore how social interaction and occupation influence well-being. They report that satisfaction with what they do was a more powerful influence on subjective well-being than high activity levels, thus emphasising the need to listen to residents’ interests, experiences, and preferences. In the US, Fox (2020) used collaborative ethnographic methods to uncover how participants’ response to social norms and expectations, sense of responsibility to others, occupational histories, and the forms of participation available to them influenced what was done and with whom. The findings reveal the complex interaction of individual and social factors that together shape people’s experiences of belonging and their life trajectories after a first psychotic episode. Giving theoretical context to the preceding papers, Tomar and Bailliard (2020) draw from an ethnographic study undertaken to better understand the social processes that influence engagement in occupation. Participants were both service providers and service users of two clubhouses in the US, which cater for people with serious mental illness. The resultant moral economics of occupation framework highlights the function of occupations, viewed as tangible assets, in maintaining both institutional hierarchies and the institutions themselves. For readers seeking a more critical approach to ethnographic research, see Simaan’s (2020) book review of Decolonizing Ethnography: Undocumented Immigrants and New Directions in Social Science.

The theme of social processes influencing people’s occupations is furthered in Huot, Cao, Kim, Shajari, and Zimonjic’s (2020) discussion of interwoven individual and social influences on the occupations of immigrants to Canada whose first language is not English. Using qualitative secondary analysis of existing data, the authors reveal how, for some, meeting economic necessities meant forgoing the necessity of learning the language. Having to learn English emerged as a barrier to economic, social, and cultural integration, success in accessing resources, and a factor in isolation and low morale. Boredom, like low morale and difficulties acquiring language skills, is often viewed as an individual, subjectively experienced phenomenon. That perception is challenged by Marshall, Roy, Becker, Nguyen, Barbic, Tjörnstrand, Gewurtz, and Wickett’s (2020) scoping review of boredom and homelessness. While only 2 studies focused specifically on boredom, it was nonetheless found to be a central feature of being homeless. While homeless people acknowledge its presence and do things to alleviate it, an important finding of this review is recognising the environment as a determinant of boredom. This was particularly evident as a problem in the transition from homeless to housed, and in the imposed routines of shelters for homeless people.

The social structuring, and imposition, of occupations is also brought into sharp relief by Jansson’s (2020) discussion of the OECD endorsed, governmental strategy of getting people into work to achieve population welfare goals. While not denying that paid work can have positive benefits beyond securing an income, reliance on getting people into work to secure their welfare reveals the hegemony of the economic philosophy of increasing consumption to buoy the economy. That philosophy frames any work as good work, thus denying the reality of unhealthy, insecure, and hazardous work conditions, and loss of occupational meaning. One proposed solution, introducing a basic income, is the focus of this paper. As Jansson flags, work is an important occupation deserving of greater attention in the occupational science literature, particularly when viewed from a perspective of occupational justice, inclusion, and citizenship.

Issue 27(1) of JOS concludes with a wide ranging conversation with Ann Wilcock, undertaken a year or so after she received a diagnosis of terminal cancer. Occupational profiles were a feature of the journal that Ann instigated in 1996; it is reinstated in this issue to provide insight to the early influences on Ann’s trajectory as a researcher, historian, and theorist. This deeply personal reflection provides glimpses of Ann as a family member, school pupil, sports person, artist, wife, immigrant, entrepreneur, occupational therapist, and dog owner. Those who knew and loved her will be familiar with other, equally important facets of this complex, highly talented woman. For herself, Ann was extremely modest about, even disappointed with, the impact her work is having on occupational science, occupational therapy theory and practice, population health, and on everyday people’s knowledge of occupation as the key to flourishing as individuals and societies. The authors in this issue of JOS might disagree with that judgement. While not all directly referenced her work, the research reported here addresses the occupational being of people whose lives are unnecessarily restricted by prejudice, unachievable occupational norms, and the lack of occupational justice. For all those who learned from and with Ann, her modesty is misplaced. Rather, we find relevance and impact in the ideas Ann promoted, as each of us applies these precious insights to understanding global issues of concern and moments of triumph.

ORCID

Clare Hocking http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0364-5157