Editorial

In 2023, the Journal of Occupational Science celebrated its 30^th anniversary. Founded in 1993 by Ann Wilcock, it was initially titled the Journal of Occupational Science: Australia (volumes 1–4 1993/1994–1997). Wilcock (1993b) noted in her editorial that “the first issue of any journal must be an exciting if rather daunting endeavour” (p. 1). Some might characterise launching a journal centred on a new academic discipline just 4 years after its announcement in another country to be as audacious as the discipline itself. Wilcock went on to acknowledge Dr Elizabeth Yerxa, along with her predecessor Mary Reilly and colleagues at University of Southern California, for “the naming and framing of occupational science as the study of humans as occupational beings” (p. 1).

Reflections on the Journal’s Trajectory

While expressing her surprise that occupation had not previously been a focus of humanistic enquiry, Wilcock (1993b) acknowledged the complexity of exploring such a “complex and dynamic entity as human occupation” (p. 1). Drawing on her extensive investigation of the diverse ways occupation has been considered over the course of human history, Wilcock did, however, acknowledge visionaries such as Karl Marx and William Morris, whose work illuminated occupation as a deeply embedded social phenomenon. She continued, explaining that:

greater understanding of the occupational nature of humans … has usually been prompted by times of massive occupational change, such as during the industrial revolution. We are currently experiencing both massive and rapid occupational change, which not only affects post-industrial societies, but all societies. … Change is upon us, and in order to plan for the future it is important that those involved understand the occupational as well as the economic needs of people. (p. 2)

Wilcock’s vision of the contribution occupational science might make to human society was further elaborated in subsequent editorials. For instance, in the second issue of JOS:A she envisioned knowledge of the human need for purposeful occupation as challenging dominant political dogma that forefronts economics, productivity, and materialism. To mark the 1993 International Year of Indigenous Peoples, she also proposed:

that one of the most useful steps which could be taken to improve health and well-being would be to eliminate culturally constructed words such as leisure and work and only use ‘occupation’ to describe what humans do. I make this radical suggestion so that all purposeful occupation can be valued more equitably than at present, and so that occupational balance is achieved from the meeting of physical, social and mental needs rather than the false and arbitrary boundaries created by contemporary [Western] culture. (Wilcock, 1993c, p. 2)

In a subsequent editorial, Wilcock (1994a) pointed to multiple issues now realised as core to occupational science: the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of occupation, the nature of occupational choice and obligations, and the ill-effects of occupational deprivation. Such concerns pre-empted the emergence of concepts and concerns that would become central to the discipline, including occupational justice, first defined by Wilcock and Townsend in 2000. Never one to shy away from issues at the root of human survival and peaceful co-existence, Wilcock also addressed matters only now coming to prominence within the discipline she helped to establish. Citing British physicist Freeman Dyson, she urged occupational scientists to bring an occupational perspective to bear on issues “central to the web of life on our planet” through research into “the structures and values of communities and individuals” that determine the destiny of our species (Wilcock, 1994a, p. 2). Those concerns are rising to prominence, 30 years later, in the serious consideration being given to the implications of human occupations for environmental degradation and climate change (See Salvador (2023) in this issue). Additionally, Wilcock’s reflections foreshadowed recognition of the urgent need to decolonise occupational science. Writing in the third issue of JOS:A volume 1, she asserted the “need to encourage people from all walks of life, disciplines and societies to contribute to this knowledge base from their perspective” (1994a, p. 2), later adding that “we have much to learn from such peoples” (Wilcock, 1994b, p. 2).

Wilcock and the team who supported her in bringing the Journal of Occupational Science into being could hardly have imagined what would be achieved over the following 30 years. The journal’s success can be partially represented by looking to the numbers. In 2022, articles published in the journal were downloaded over 280,000 times, with its international reach extending out through 1,044 libraries to all regions of the world. Wilcock’s (1993a, 1995, 2007) scholarship continues to support that success with three of her most influential articles in JOS cited 241 times and viewed by more than 43,000 people since the journal signed on with publishers Taylor and Francis in 2011. In addition, Wilcock’s collaboration with Elizabeth Townsend (2000) to define the concept of occupational justice has been cited 122 times. Honouring Wilcock’s scholarship, the JOS Editorial Board established the Wilcock Award for Emerging Authors in 2021. The selection criteria are excellence and innovation of the article topic, conceptualization, or methodology that contribute to the advancement of occupational science internationally and well-crafted writing. Awardees for articles published online in 2020, 2021, and 2022 are, respectively, Huglstad et al. (2022), Rule (2021), and Alonso-Ferreira et al. (2022).

Further causes for celebration include achieving a 5-year impact factor of 2.4, which reportedly places JOS in the top 20% of journals in the Social Sciences listing (Source: scijournal.org). JOS has also recently achieved a CiteScore of 3.7, indicating that, on average, articles published in the Journal of Occupational Science are cited 3.7 times, placing the journal in the top quartile. That success is buoyed by highly cited articles, with those receiving the most attention acknowledged through the JOS Article Impact Award. The award for 2020 publications went to Whiteford et al. for their 2018 article presenting case studies applying the Participatory Occupational Justice Framework. For 2021, the award went to the advanced online publication of Lavalley and Johnson’s (2022) examination of anti-Black racism in the US. At the time of selection, it had been downloaded more than 7,000 times. As I prepare this editorial, views of the article stand at 27,553, with 21 citations and an altmetric score of 53, indicating the extraordinary amount of media attention it has garnered. The 2023 award went to Berger et al.’s (2022) article, ‘The sociocultural shaping of mothers’ doing, being, becoming and belonging after returning to work’, which has already achieved over 10,000 views, 4,950 downloads, and 5 citations.

Further achievements that were certainly not envisaged in the journal’s early years are the move to publishing articles in dual languages. This has involved the Editorial Board’s efforts to provide a manuscript submission and review process in Spanish and Portuguese, with publication in both the original language and English. Since the first group of articles were published in 2018, the totals now stand at 4 articles in Portuguese and 24 in Spanish, with more in process. This has been a complex and labour-intensive process, with every effort made to ensure accurate representation of occupational science concepts. Enormous thanks go to Dr Lilian Magalhães for her efforts in initiating and sustaining this project, and to Taylor and Francis for their willingness to work with us to find sustainable solutions to publishing articles in dual languages. For direct access to these papers, look for the JOS Collections, available at https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/rocc20/collections, or search the website using keywords ‘ocupacional’ or ‘ocupacionais’. The uptake of these articles is gratifying, with usage in Chile equalling that in the US, and Brazil and Spain on par with Canada and Australasia. Building on this legacy, the Journal of Occupational Science can confidently proceed towards its next 30 years, continuing to inform occupational therapy theory and practice, while aspiring to incrementally inform the survival of the human species.

Zemke Lectures and Feature Articles

Turning now to the content of this issue, we are privileged to present two Zemke Lectures in Occupational Science in this issue. Josephsson’s (2023) lecture was held over from 2020, due to the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Employing a narrative approach, he explores tensions in the framing of occupation, as individual or social, between the elements of occupation versus its processes unfolding over time, and between portraying human successes and vulnerabilities. Whiteford’s (2023) lecture, echoing Wilcock’s early work in some respects, presents a series of propositions to argue for greater levels of representation and politicization of occupational issues within society.

In a sense, the 10 feature articles that follow can be viewed as bringing the occupations discussed ‘into the light’; a metaphor drawing on Twinley’s (2020) concept of illuminating the dark side of occupation. Most closely aligned are two articles that focus on occupations and ways of being that draw overt societal disapproval. Gätz, van Nes, and Maersk’s (2023) study delves into the reality of continuing to smoke tobacco after being diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. “Forbidden fruit”, a concept drawn from the research participants, points to both knowledge of the harmful outcomes of continuing, and the condemnation it might earn them, alongside the gratification of an occupation experienced in the moment as pleasurable, restorative, and rewarding. The notion that certain occupations “ought” to be extinguished is further challenged by Taylor’s (2023) personal and scholarly appraisal of occupational scientists’ collusion with the ableist assumptions underpinning therapies designed to suppress and mask autistic ways of being. In failing to bring an occupational perspective to shed new light on autistic behaviours, Taylor asserts, the discipline has supported a normalization agenda. Based on analysis of established occupational frameworks, she argues instead for attending to the ways autistic behaviours might be reconceptualized to foster inclusion and social responsiveness.

The notion of bringing something into the light can also be interpreted as illuminating things that were there all along but largely overlooked. Thus, the concept of co-occupation is brought forward to explain the otherwise invisible work mothers of children with fetal alcohol spectrum do to scaffold their participation in shared occupations. Strategies include having flexible expectations, maximizing the available opportunities, grading the support provided, and involving others (Drotsky, Gretschel, & Sonday, 2023). Similarly, the experience of waiting, which is surely a universal experience, was made more salient by restrictions imposed to curtail the population impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly waiting for healthcare interventions. De Iongh and Martin’s (2023) study brings waiting forward as both a disruption to occupation and as an occupation in itself, in that it has all the aspects of occupation: timing, space and setting, preparations, and performance requirements.

Sleeping is an experience that is literally in the dark for many. Whether sleep is or is not an occupation remains contested, depending on the way occupation is defined. What van der Veen, Josephsson, and Satink (2023) bring to light are the habits and routines people build around finishing their day and approaching sleep, the feelings of safety and security those routines provide, and adjustments made to the social and physical environment to support sleep. Equally universal and in need of illumination are the aesthetic experiences tied to occupation, which “stir humans to act” (Karen & Evetts, 2023, p. 634) and interact socially. Everyday aesthetic experiences, most readily identified in creative acts, are described as motivational and tied to emotional processing (pleasure / displeasure) and agency. Illustrating that discussion, von Kürthy, Aranda, Sadlo, and Stew’s (2023) examination of embroidery, a creative pastime stereotypically associated with older women, reveals the interplay of body, mind, and materials with transformative potential. In a contrasting example, Sleight, Rising, Boyd, Wilsnack, Goodfellow, Khincha, and Werner-Linb (2023) unpack a situation hidden by its rarity and association with life-threatening illness. Their study explored the occupational permutations of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which is an inherited predisposition to cancer. Against the ever-present threat of developing terminal illness and the associated burdens of life-long cancer screening and treatment, the experience and threat of loss of valued occupations sits alongside the desire to maintain normal occupations and participation in occupations that provide emotional relief.

The notion of bringing ideas and understandings to light is nuanced in the sense that occupations hidden from view for some are in plain sight for those who live them. One of the consequences of occupational science’s origins in Western contexts is the relative lack of knowledge of forms of occupations endemic to cultures not rooted in a European worldview. Revealing those practices to Western eyes also reveals something more deep-seated: that occupations endemic to specific contexts can only be understood when viewed through contextually relevant ontologies and epistemologies. Hendricks, Galvaan, and bin Yahya al-Ninowy’s (2023) description of salah (an Islamic religious practice) sensitively examines those tensions. Amongst the insights offered, the authors discuss tensions relating from the dichotomous Western separation of religious and non-religious practices.

The final feature article in this issue circles back to issues Wilcock raised over 30 years ago: the impact of human occupation on the environment. Algado (2023) highlights the urgent need to study the inseparable relationship of human occupation and the environment; a focus he terms ‘occupational ecology’. Employing the concepts of ecopation and eco-occupation, Algado argues against the dualistic view of humans as somehow separate from the planet, and directly attributes the productivity patterns of Western economies to environmental degradation. Three decades on from Wilcock’s expression of concern, the urgency of these issues is now undeniable.

Looking Forward

We are proud that, in its first 30 years, the Journal of Occupational Science has carried Dr Wilcock’s vision, advancing knowledge of occupation in the directions she envisioned as well as in unexpected ways. We look forward to the next 30 years with great hope for the part the journal can play in promoting occupational science in the service of humanity. In particular, we take pride in the Editorial Board members’ efforts to support the development and dissemination of knowledge enriched by diverse perspectives as underrepresented voices join the discussion. That work is increasingly shaped by the Board’s Antiracism Pledge (available in English and translated into French, Portuguese, German, Spanish, Japanese, and Arabic) and its nascent decolonial efforts (Stanley et al., 2020, 2021).

Planning for the 31^st volume is well underway. The first issue will feature papers from the first World Occupational Science Conference, convened at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver Canada,18-20 August, 2022. Professor Susan Forwell and Dr Suzanne Huot will serve as Guest Editors. That event brought together multiple voices speaking in multiple languages (See the published abstracts, free to download at https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2022.2111001). From 2024, also expect to see a greater range of languages represented on the JOS website as we continue to work with Taylor and Francis to make the abstracts of articles accessible to broader audiences.

Acknowledgement

I acknowledge and thank Ngāti Whātua, the Māori iwi (tribe) who were guardians 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 Pākehā (settlers).

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.