Editorial

Prof Clare Hocking

The collection of articles presented in this second issue of the Journal of Occupational Science for 2017 revolve around two key concepts – occupational disruption and occupational engagement. Both terms have a long history in the occupational science literature, with understandings of their meaning and implications increasing in complexity over the decades.

Occupational disruption refers to a short or long term discontinuity in people’s occupations that is generally understood to be substantial and pervasive, or at least unanticipated in its scale – as in first time motherhood (Horne, Corr, & Earle, 2005). While the term disruption has negative connotations, occupational disruption can also be experienced as part of transitions people deliberately set out to make, for example becoming an ex-smoker, recovering from an addiction or having weight loss surgery. The cause might be external or internal, such as a food allergy (VanderKaay, 2016), thus distinguishing occupational disruption from occupational deprivation, where barriers to occupation are by definition externally imposed. Nonetheless, occupational disruptions have been described as impacting individuals’ entire repertoire of occupations or established pattern of occupations and as eliciting or necessitating an adaptive response on the part of the individual concerned. In some circumstances, such as the mass occupational disruption associated with natural disasters and that commonly experienced by immigrants and refugees, societal or governmental responses are indicated.

Occupational disruptions, sometimes also termed occupational change or occupational transitions, have been discussed in relation to acquired mental and physical health conditions, threats to work-life balance, working the night shift, driving cessation, and incarceration in a concentration camp. They have also been attributed to experiencing a major shift in occupational roles, and as potentially involving a period of occupational imbalance. While disruptions to people’s occupations are generally thought to be temporary, or at least to resolve to some extent with the passage of time, the consequent effects on occupational identity and occupational potential might be profound.

Responding to the accumulating literature on occupational disruption, Nizzero, Cote and Cramm (2017) undertook a scoping review to distil the meaning of the concept. They found inconsistent use of the term, although identity was confirmed as a central aspect and a change in the number of occupations people engage in commonly reported, including both increases and decreases. Changed quality of occupational performance, most commonly a reduction that sometimes necessitated extra time or being given support, was also apparent. Nizzero et al. conclude that enhanced clarity of what occupational disruptions entail will assist with understanding its effects and promote further research.

Employing the concept of occupational disruption, Sima, Thomas and Lowrie (2017) report their qualitative descriptive study of residents of an Australian town hit by Cyclone Yasi. As they explain, such studies are important because natural disasters are expected to increase in frequency due to global warming. They describe how recovery occupations in the immediate aftermath give way to the realisation that the disruption will be long term, affecting productive and leisure occupations. Reconstruction efforts are experienced as a secondary disruption by many, with some residents remaining in a liminal space, even 2 years after the event.

Fritz and Cutchin’s (2017) exploration of incremental change in their neighbourhood is also, in a sense, an account of occupational disruption. Taking a transactional perspective, they trace how gradual physical deterioration and socio-demographic changes have played out in the occupations of African-Americans living in Detroit. Their analysis revealed four types of occupational change: shifts in both spatio-temporal and social participation, heightened levels of vigilance while participating in daily occupations, and occupations undertaken specifically to preserve and protect the neighbourhood. This is an important study in bringing to light the interrelationship of occupational disruption and changing urban contexts.

The second theme of this issue of JOS, occupational engagement, or “engaging in” an occupation, is generally discussed in relation to what individuals do, although the term “collective engagement” has infrequently appeared. The term has been used interchangeably with performing or participating in an occupation, with similar connotations of being a meaningful transaction with the environment. When used with reference to carrying out an occupational form, we are reminded that occupational engagement has both observable and culturally shaped features, while its discussion in relation to occupational presence and mindfulness signals that people are conscious of engaging in occupations, which suggests intentionality. In JOS, the concept has been discussed in relation to both health and well-being, with linkages to concepts such as occupational development, occupational career and occupational potential pointing to interest in both stability and change in occupational engagement over the lifespan. There is also a level of cross-over between occupational disruption and occupational engagement, with some literature specifically addressing the disruption of established patterns of occupational engagement. Varying perspectives have been considered, including occupational transitions, occupational adaptation, and the use of strategies to maintain occupational performance. Issues of occupational justice have also been invoked in instances where barriers to occupational engagement exist.

To make sense of the directions in which the concept of occupational engagement is developing, Morris and Cox (2017) undertook a critical review of the literature. Their work contributes to the occupational science literature, firstly, in detailing the process used to develop a framework of understandings of occupational engagement, including both its positive and negative aspects. Their conceptual mapping of the concept is of equal value, particularly for their assertion that occupational engagement cannot be considered without reference to the value and consequences of occupational experiences. Morris and Cox’s article will prime readers for the manuscripts that follow, all of which directly address occupational engagement or people’s experience of engaging in occupation in the context of other life challenges.

Marshall, Lysaght and Krupa’s (2017) interpretive phenomenological study concerns the occupational engagement of homeless people in a mid-sized urban context in the US. As they explain, most previous studies of people who are homeless have been conducted in large metropolitan centres where environmental influences on the meaning and experience of occupation are likely very different. Importantly, the focus on occupational engagement brought to light the particular meanings of altruistic and productive occupations for this population. People experiencing homelessness are also the subject of Thomas, Gray and McGinty’s (2017) study. Set in a regional city in Australia, the study similarly focused on occupational engagement in order to understand how occupation contributes to achieving and sustaining the well-being. These researchers reveal that across the diverse groups that make up the homeless population, survival, self-identity and social connectedness are key themes.

While not using the term occupational engagement, Rebeiro Gruhl’s (2017) case study of what busking means for her participant reveals much of his experience of engaging in this occupation. Busking 4–6 hours every weekday, in all weather conditions, James achieves the practical outcome of supplementing his income. Through playing music in public, he also gets feedback from members of the public who recognise him and acknowledge his efforts, indicating that he has become a valued part of their daily lives. Busking, James reports, is an important part of recovery from his enduring mental illness. Motivations for and emotional response to engaging in occupation also feature in the grounded theory Santos Tavares Silva, Thorén-Jönsson, Sunnerhagen and Dahlin-Ivanoff’s (2017) developed from their secondary analysis of data from East African immigrants to Sweden who live with the ongoing effects of polio. True to Morris and Cox’s (2017) conceptual framework of occupational engagement, Santos Tavares Silva and colleagues found that participants’ involvement in, performance of, and perceptions of engagement in occupation were influenced by their current context. Participation, for these immigrants, was about achieving mastery, experiencing meaning in daily life, connecting to people and places, and trusting others. However, their engagement in occupation was impeded by their identity as both people with a disability and migrants, and as a result they experienced both disadvantage and social exclusion.

Also reporting secondary data analysis, Man, Davis, Webster and Polatajko (2017) re-analysed data originally gathered to uncover the extent to which people with osteoarthritis re-engage in previous occupations after knee joint replacement. Honing in on the pre-operative experience, Man et al. reveal how accumulating losses from their occupational repertoire, due to decreasing capacity to engage in occupation, and the associated loss of occupational identity, create a “tipping point” where people opt for surgical intervention. Taking a different approach, Walder and Molineux (2017) argue that the majority of research related to occupational engagement has been undertaken to establish the efficacy of interventions intended to remediate people’s capacity to participate despite chronic disease, major illness or injury. Rather than engagement per se, therefore, their study synthesised qualitative findings of how people adjust to such health conditions. Using occupational adaptation and occupational identity as sensitising concepts, their analysis revealed a process by which people adapt what occupations they engage in, and how, while re-establishing an occupational identity based on achieving sufficient levels of competence, along with renewed confidence and motivation.

The final article in this issue of JOS is Sofo and Wicks’ (2017) call to apply an occupational perspective to poverty reduction. This too is relevant to discussions of engaging in occupation, because living in poverty impacts the occupations people can access. Sofo and Wicks promote that agenda by introducing the SEED-SCALE, a theoretical framework designed to promote social change, describing it as inherently occupational in that it harnesses what people do to generate local and global solutions.

In closing, allow me to draw attention to the call for submissions for special issues of JOS, printed in this issue, and to announce plans for future special issues featuring presentations to occupational science symposia in South America and Europe, as well as a special issue of systematic reviews. The call for submissions will be out shortly.

ORCID

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