Editorial

More than 25 years after occupational science came into being, this issue of the Journal of Occupational Science launches a new section: “Teaching Occupation”. It is dedicated to scholarly discussion of, and research into, how occupation is taught and learned. The need for an educational philosophy grounded in the relationship of occupation and health was signalled by Ann Wilcock, founder of this journal. For Wilcock, occupational science provided a way forward “in respect of the health and wellness needs of present and future generations” (2000, p. 79). She foresaw that “the basic tenet of the science, that humans are occupational beings” had potential “to result in a changed view of life and health” (pp. 79–80) and would provide a much needed educational focus. In explaining what an occupational philosophy of teaching and learning would entail, Wilcock described:

A different kind of academic culture – a culture which is prepared to own and use occupational language; to enable students to engage in research aimed at understanding humans as occupational beings; and to advocate and develop academic programmes grounded in occupational philosophy. (p. 83)

Such programmes would reflect “philosophical beliefs about the importance of occupation in the health of individuals, not only in content but in methods” (p. 83). Wilcock predicted that once the philosophical concepts of occupational science:

… have been thoroughly related to education, it will be possible to consider not only the content, but also teaching and learning strategies that arise from these concepts. We may find that we reject, adapt, adopt or develop entirely different methods when we truly incorporate our philosophical views into … educational systems. (p. 83)

Wilcock’s vision was that an occupational approach to teaching would “provide students with a living example of the effectiveness of an occupational perspective” (p. 84). This would require academics to “consider teaching philosophies that are influenced by and compatible with the theory that humans are occupational beings” (p. 84). Wilcock argued that:

People learn best what is fitted to their individual capacities, what has meaning for them and what is valued by their culture. They also learn best when teaching and learning strategies recognize and give equal value to individual differences, so that each person develops their unique potential in a community that flourishes. … The educational methods must be interactive and emancipatory … encourag[ing] students to appreciate and respond to their need to lead an occupationally balanced lifestyle. Such an educational programme must reflect a range of relevant and meaningful sociocultural and professional values and issues, accept different ideas and points of view, and cannot be authoritarian. (p. 84)

Based on the life-changing impact of her own exploration of the meaning of occupation, Wilcock recommended “a preliminary class in which students could study themselves as occupational beings so that they can begin to understand their distinctive capacities and strengths” (p. 85). That would, she envisioned, enable students to shape their educational experience “towards the development of their occupational potential, as well as coming to a self-awareness of skills they need to develop in areas of weakness” (p. 85). While thus attending to the development of individual students, an occupational philosophy of education would also need “to be applicable to a political and community approach … we need to understand that the way in which governments and communities support or constrain engagement in occupation can lead to encouragement or restriction of individual talents, interests, well-being and health” (p. 85). Students would therefore need:

… classes in which they can show what occupation can offer to their communities. They need to learn how to forge links in the community to effect change. They need to see how they can enhance their political insights to contribute to public debate on issues relevant to occupation and health. To fully exemplify a personal, professional and occupationally based philosophy of education, students must develop community-enabling skills … and see their roles in the public arena as contributing to occupational justice in society. (pp. 85–86)

While Wilcock addressed her comments to occupational therapy educational programmes, the essential message of rethinking an educational philosophy in occupational terms holds true for any occupation-focused programme; whether graduating occupational therapists, public health workers or anyone else who will carry forward competencies for occupational well-being and promoting occupational justice. To launch “Teaching Occupation”, the JOS Editorial Board invited commentaries from renowned academics based in Canada, the UK and USA. See my introduction to the section for details (Hocking, 2016).

In addition to our new initiative, this issue of JOS continues the tradition of publishing the Canadian Society of Occupational Scientists’ Townsend-Polatajko lecture, and the Society for the Study of Occupation: USA’s Ruth Zemke Lecture in Occupational Science. Shaw (2016), the 2014 recipient of the Townsend-Polatajko Lectureship, used a futures research approach to explore what people “will do” for work. Framed from an occupational injustice perspective, Shaw’s intent was to open up dialogue about the current under- and unemployment of young people in Canada, and what people might do differently to change their circumstances. To that end she applied Causal Layered Analysis, a technique used to generate transformative thinking about complex social problems. True to a futures research approach, Shaw looked both to the past – drawing on song lyrics from the 1800s to the present to explore the meaning of work mobility – and the present, to generate a vision of a “preferred future” that might be used to leverage action and policy change.

Providing a very different perspective on “how to act,” Humphry’s 2015 Ruth Zemke Lecture in Occupational Science addressed the early emergence of occupation in human infants. Though limited by their physical and neurological immaturity, Humphry (2016) showed how the caregiving practices to which infants are exposed shape their behaviour, as they endeavour to participate in the occupational routines they observe. Citing research revealing that infants experience people’s actions as intentional, Humphry argued that they coordinate their actions to those around them, suggesting the development of understanding of how to participate with others.

The three feature articles in this issue of JOS address important social issues: children’s inclusion and risk taking, and the nature of transitions following trauma. Asbjørnslett and Bekken (2016) give an account of how a boy with both abilities and disabilities is included in a local sports team. The authors frame their discussion from a human rights perspective, noting that despite official policies of the Norwegian government affirming that people with disabilities have the right to participate, disabled children remain under-represented in organized sports. The critical features identified in Asbjørnslett and Bekken’s account of successful inclusion include openness to difference on the part of all concerned – the coach, the other players, and the boy, and their creative use of rules and strategies. In an invited commentary, Jones (2016) finds alignment between this study and her own investigation of shared occupations, which similarly revealed the transactional nature of inclusive actions on the part of sports coaches, parents, spectators and the children themselves.

Also addressing children’s access to and experience of occupation, Niehues, Bundy, Broom, and Tranter (2016) report the dilemmas parents, and subsequently teachers, face in balancing their need to protect children and allowing them to incorporate age-appropriate risks in their play occupations. Encompassing parents of both typically developing children and children with various physical and social impairments, the study explored the strategies adults use to support children to become more confident and autonomous, while acknowledging and manging their own worries and anxiety. To promote that shift, the researchers asked parents about the strengths and values they wanted their children to develop, such as resilience and courage. They also interviewed them about how children are enabled to reach those goals by managing increasing levels of risk and uncertainty. Few differences were found between the two groups of parents, except that parents of children with disabilities relayed many more stories of facing risk and uncertainty in order to make opportunities available for their children.

Scalzo, Forwell and Suto (2016) addressed the nature of transitions following an unexpected health-related trauma, in order to develop an occupationally focused definition. They conducted two systematic reviews to compare and contrast understandings of such transitions written from an occupational perspective with understandings published in the broader health literature. Their findings reveal key similarities, in describing the experience from the individual’s perspective and acknowledging both emotional and physical changes, and the need for social support. The point of difference was that the occupational literature stresses engagement in occupation to support well-being and address the transition, while the broader literature emphasises identity issues and uncertainty.

In concluding, let me also draw attention to two Calls for Papers. Staffan Josephsson will guest edit a special issue of JOS on Transcending the Individual, in which occupation, rather than people, is the centre of analysis. Papers might, for example, draw on Dewey’s transactionalism, Latour’s actor-network theory or other theoretical perspectives; attend to how such perspectives fit with the subjective experience of occupation; or initiate other topics of scholarly debate. Submissions are due on 1^st February 2017.

The second call for papers is from Jyothi Gupta who, following the intense interest aroused by the previous Special Issues on Occupation, Wellbeing and Immigration, has agreed to be the guest editor for a follow-up special issue. With the arrival of, and ongoing difficulties faced by, immigrants and refugees attracting headlines the world over, we anticipate that occupational scientists will be keen to further explore the impact of moving from a familiar to an unfamiliar environment on people’s means and ability to engage in meaningful occupations. Submissions are due on 1st July 2017. For more information about these Special Issues, or to share ideas for future topics, please feel free to contact me.

ORCiD

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