Editorial

As various institutions associated with occupational science—the doctoral programme at University of Southern California (USC), the Journal of Occupational Science, the USC Occupational Science Symposium, the Society of Occupational Scientists (SSO:USA)—approach and pass their 30-year milestones, it is fitting to reflect on the corpus of knowledge occupational scientists have accumulated. Put bluntly, what has been achieved? Not enough, according to Emerita Professor Gelya Frank, in her keynote address to the 27^th USC Chan Occupational Science Symposium. Or perhaps, not the most important things.

Speaking from her position as an anthropologist embedded in occupational science in the USA, Frank (2022) challenged occupational science to make a “consequential contribution” (p. 12) by addressing fundamental social issues: Racial injustice, social inequalities, white supremacy, the erosion of social cohesion, and the climate emergency. To that end, Frank asserted, occupational science needs testable propositions: “What is it about occupation that works and, importantly, what is it about occupation that doesn’t work?” (p. 2). Identifying consequential questions to mobilise around will mean bringing pragmatism’s focus on practical problem solving into play with critical theories, including her own occupational reconstructions theory, with its emphasis on shared narratives and collective actions of people who are committed to working together to change problematic situations that vex them.

In one of two invited commentaries, Dos Santos (2022) amplified that call, describing Frank’s theory of occupational reconstructions as a melding of “social experimentation, solidarity through embodied engagement in shared occupations, relationships between shared narratives and collective actions, and noncoercive participation by people hoping to ameliorate a shared problem” (p. 1). Dos Santos emphasised both that the theory is applicable across diverse situations, and its ready application in professional education. Supporting those claims, Dos Santos offered an example of the differential impact of neoliberalism in Brazil, as illustrated by the case of the migrant workers recruited to build a modernist city in the 1950s and the present-day circumstances of their children and grandchildren. Further illustrating the application of Frank’s theory of occupational reconstructions, Motimele (2022) added her own commentary, speaking to the violence that characterises protests in South Africa. Drawing on the Rhodes Must Fall student-led protests on University of Cape Town campuses, Motimele cited the “questions raised by the application of this construct to these protests, the need for context driven research in occupational science, and implications for the role and scope of occupational therapy practice” (p. 1). My thanks to Emerita Professor Frank for drawing my attention to her address and accompanying commentaries, and the challenges they issue to all of us to take responsibility for shaping the future of occupational science. A recording of her address can be accessed via https://chan.usc.edu/events/symposium/2021

The critical perspectives voiced in these opening pieces set the scene for the feature articles that follow. First up are two items previously published in 2020, as part of the Journal of Occupational Science’s virtual issue on antiracism. Lavalley and Johnson (2022) directly confronted injustice and anti-Black racism, charting the role occupation has played in systemic racism in the US from the establishment of the slave trade through to the Civil Rights Movement. Recognising and confronting that history, they argue, is a necessary step in moving towards reconciliation and healing. Lavalley and Johnson’s message clearly struck a chord, becoming the most downloaded article in the journal’s history and earning its authors the 2022 JOS Impact Award. At the time of writing, the article had been downloaded almost 20,000 times. Dunbar-Smalley and Washington’s (2022) invited commentary further explores the intersection of collectivist and anti-racist occupations. Building on points argued by Lavalley and Johnson, these authors described what they term ‘anti-racist occupations’ and outlined occupational reconstructive practices that might lay the pathway to moving forward.

Addressing an equally urgent societal issue, Lieb (2022) completed a scoping review of environmental sustainability within the occupational science and therapy literature. Synthesising the findings into the Evolving Theory of Occupational Justice, Lieb suggested that structural and contextual factors influence engagement in sustainable occupations, thereby contributing to occupationally just outcomes or the continuation of recognised injustices. Clearly, further work is necessary; at the heart of which one of Frank’s consequential questions may lie.

Unemployment is a further pressing social issue, but one seldom viewed from an ‘occupational perspective’. Huot, Aldrich, Laliberte Rudman, and Stone’s (2022) 4-year study of the long-term economic effects of the 2008 recession in the US and Canada revealed its impact on employment precarity. That is, experiences of inequality and insecurity. Informed by a critical perspective, the routine daily occupations of long-term unemployed workers were mapped. The results provide a powerful visual representation of the severely constrained occupations and geographical range of participants subjected to neoliberal expectations of self-responsibility to make oneself work ready.

The supply of adequate housing is another intensifying societal issue that is implicitly occupational and unequally experienced across age cohorts. Pfaff and Trentham (2022) explored one adaptive solution being trialled in Sweden: Senior cohousing. Using a critical realist lens, the study revealed the interplay of individual and collective occupations for cohoused older adults, and the importance of both. While cohousing is an innovative response to people’s desire to ‘age-in-community’, greater understanding of institutional and cultural factors that influence its success is needed.

The unequal constraints on, and possibilities open to, people with disabilities are additional, fundamental issues of social and occupational justice. Two articles address this issue. Bulk (2022) presented a critical occupational analysis of the accessibility legislation in British Columbia, Canada, concluding that without an occupational lens, potential injustices relating to occupational choice and the restricted range of occupations open to people with disabilities would be overlooked. Katzman, Mohler, Durocher, and Kinsella (2022) zeroed in on the assumed benefits of direct-funded attendant services. This secondary analysis of data examined the impact of direct funding on occupational engagement, uncovering both promotion of the occupational right to be supported to participate in meaningful occupations, along with simultaneous constraints on choice relating to eligibility criteria and the social engagement recipients had been conditioned into.

Two final papers round out this issue. Tapia and colleagues (2022) explored college students’ psychological well-being, and potential protective and risk factors, during the disruptions to everyday occupations imposed due to COVID-19. This article is a follow-up to the earlier 2022 Special Issue on COVID-19, which presented an occupational perspective on people’s responses to the pandemic. Perhaps most important amongst their findings is the extent of the shift in participants’ beliefs and behaviours, suggesting a lingering impact on people’s identity, experience of occupation, and well-being. Finally, wrapping up many of the concerns threaded through the studies reported in this issue, Aldrich, Galvaan, Gerlach, Laliberte Rudman, Magalhães, Pollard, and Farias (2022) offered a considered perspective on ways to promote critically informed knowledge of occupation through engaging with informed participants at conferences. The reflections that this group of internationally diverse authors offer challenge the usual conference format in favour of prolonged engagement of conference registrants around issues of concern.

Please also note the call for papers aligned with the theme of the Inaugural World Occupational Science conference held in August 2022 in Vancouver Canada: Occupation and society: Global to local perspectives for the future. The guest editors, Dr Susan Forwell and Dr Suzanne Huot, are opening the space for both papers based on presentations given at the conference and new submissions that support the theme. As they explain, the special issue aims to “encourage knowledge mobilization regarding the complex relations between human occupation and society, understood as a social group characterized by people involved in regular social interaction; who share a spatial or social territory; and/or are governed by the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations”. Submissions close on 31 January 2023.

As ever, we hope you find this issue of the Journal both challenging and enlightening. Feedback is welcomed.

Acknowledgement

I acknowledge and thank Ngāti Whātua, the Māori iwi (tribe) who were occupiers of the rohe (tribal territory) on which the Faculty of Health and Environmental Science of Te Wānanga Aronui o Tāmaki Makau Rau (Auckland University of Technology) stands, prior to colonisation and appropriation of land ownership by Pakeha (settlers).

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.