Special issue: Occupation and society: Global to local perspectives for the future

Dr. Suzanne Huot

Dr. Susan Forwell

The inaugural World Occupational Science Conference was hosted in August 2022 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The conference theme, ‘Occupation and society: Global to local perspectives for the future’, recognized that all human engagement in daily occupations occurs within context. The papers in this special issue highlight the complex relations between human occupation and society, and address the varied ways that occupational engagement is shaped, in part, by the ways that occupations are ‘situated’ (e.g., historically, politically, geographically, etc.).

The theme acknowledges that whether occupations are engaged in individually or as collectives (e.g., families, neighbourhoods, communities), understandings of what people need, want, and are expected to do are informed by their respective social contexts. This special issue, stemming from the conference, aims to expand dialogue regarding the complex relations between human occupation and society by centering ‘Glocal’ perspectives (e.g., Persson & Erlandsson, 2014). It includes works that provide local to global considerations of the relationship between occupation and society, as well as the future of the discipline. The theme also reflects the increasing focus on social transformation in occupational science (Farias et al., 2019; Frank & Muriithi, 2015; Laliberte Rudman et al., 2019; van Bruggen et al., 2020), which highlights the need to study occupation beyond the level of individual engagement and experience (Gerlach et al., 2018) and put knowledge to use in transforming inequitable conditions. In addition to the 14 papers included in this special issue, a supplement of the conference abstracts is available (Inaugural World Occupational Science Conference, 2022).

The conference hosted two keynote speakers, whose papers frame this special issue. The opening keynote by Venkatapuram (2024) focused on social justice and equity. Drawing from his background in philosophy and applied ethics, Venkatapuram begins by reflecting on the global health and other impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Centering the importance of ethics, he poses several important questions for the discipline to reflect upon, including what its aspirations are. In turning to values and social justice philosophies, among others Venkatapuram proposes the capabilities approach (Nussbaum, 2011; Robeyns, 2011; Sen, 1993; Venkatapuram, 2011) as one direction for the integration of justice into research that can draw attention to a diversity of experience. Finally, in considering difficult problems that those seeking to promote justice need to address, he highlights three essential issues. First, he signals the need to focus on how occupational scientists will transform global inequalities and global structural injustice. Second, in attending to intuitions, strong beliefs, and changing minds, he centers the need to be reflexive about the intuitions integrated into our work and to acknowledge those brought by others. Finally, he urges research translation, to choose purposeful pathways to impact practice.

The second keynote, by Magalhães (2024a, b), is available in both Portuguese and English. It focuses on important questions rather than offering specific recommendations for occupational science. Indeed, Magalhães highlights three main considerations: 1) the scientific component of occupational science; that is, science as a socially relevant and collective project; 2) occupational scientists’ responsibility to be responsive; and 3) the personal dimensions and costs of undertaking research in occupational science. In elaborating these considerations further, Magalhães points to the need to integrate diverse ways of knowing and speaks to artisanal knowledge (de Sousa Santos, 2018), in particular, as an alternative to scientific knowledge. From this perspective she critically questions the importance of authorship and writing in contrast to oral traditions in the production of knowledge. Acknowledging ongoing calls to decolonize occupational science, she turns toward methods that can support the development of knowledges that are embodied, holistic, and collective, among others, such as Body Mapping Storytelling (Solomon, 2007). Finally, Magalhães candidly speaks to the complex role of researchers working in decolonial ways. She explores, for instance, the emotional costs and safety considerations of this type of responsive research, stating ultimately that “the search for epistemic justice demands the development of skills required to articulate a wider scope of knowledge production” (Magalhães, 2024a, p. 28). She concludes with a profound reflection on the centrality of language in sharing understandings and the need to more holistically conceive occupations in a decolonized world.

As reflected in the papers included in this special issue, the keynote lecturers both had their finger on the pulse of, and helped inform, the rich dialogue occurring at the conference and within occupational science more broadly. Resonating with the theme of global perspectives for the future, a number of the papers prompt the discipline to continue to think critically and to act on the urgent need to decolonize occupational science. Ahmed-Landeryou (2024) begins by critically reflecting on her lived experience of the conference to argue that occupational scientists must first turn their gaze inward to acknowledge the ways that coloniality exists within the discipline, prior to engaging in decolonial praxis beyond disciplinary boundaries. She provides an important discussion about coloniality and Western hegemonies in occupational science. For instance, she draws attention to the lack of diversity within the discipline’s leadership, underscored by ongoing white supremacist ideologies that characterize Western centrism and neoliberalism. The critical reflection on coloniality within the discipline, and the need for decolonial praxis and decolonisation highlights three key questions: What if occupational science education takes a decolonising approach? What if occupational science democratises? What if occupational science knowledge generation and dissemination does take a decolonising approach? Ultimately, Ahmed-Landeryou urges occupational scientists to systemically decolonize the discipline on moral and ethical grounds.

In a similar vein, Drumond de Brito et al. (2024) critique the framings of Western epistemologies as ‘universal’, instead highlighting the ways they contribute to coloniality. Like the paper by Ahmed-Landeryou (2024), Drumond de Brito et al. also draw on Córdoba’s (2021, p. 1365) work to make the point that universalizing the underlying characteristics of occupational justice “is a new form of epistemic and cognitive colonization of the discipline” (p. 47). Raising similar ideas shared within Magalhães’ keynote (2024a, b), they argue that in drawing on varied knowledges, including plural and circular sciences, occupational science can work toward decolonization by not seeking to universalize understandings. Their argument is further developed by situating their discussion of plural law and Indigenous and African cosmovisions within a historical perspective. They explain the development of natural/modern law in relation to the creation of the nation state and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which contribute toward the universalizing of individualism. Alternatively, they draw on scholars from the Global South, including de Sousa Santos (2019) to critique Western epistemologies and to argue for the establishment of “an ancestral plural right in which all lives matter” (p. 53). In attending to plural justice and law they address relationships with nature and community. The cosmovisions addressed are shown to integrate different ways of thinking, existing, feeling, and doing.

Veiga-Seijo et al. (2024a, b) also address the decolonization of occupational science in their paper, which is available in Spanish and English. Specifically, they share collective reflections on the ways knowledge is created in the discipline, outline barriers to participating in international dialogue, and share ways to further democratize academic knowledge. Echoing aspects of Magalhães’ (2024a, b) keynote, their focus on language highlights ways that communication barriers limit the creation of a discipline that is inclusive, participatory, and diverse. In articulating a vision for occupational science that extends beyond the Anglophone sphere, as described by Magalhães et al. (2019), Veiga-Seijo et al. begin by listing some of the different initiatives that have been undertaken to make knowledge generated in a range of languages more visible and accessible. Drawing on a methodology of experiences reports (Daltro & Faria, 2019), they share the findings from their critical dialogue process. First, they present reflections related to barriers to attending academic events. Second, they outline recommendations for democratizing these events. Veiga-Seijo et al. weave similar threads as the earlier papers, acknowledging the need for inclusion of diverse cosmovisions to decolonize and democratize occupational science. Like Ahmed-Landeryou (2024), their collective reflections signal that presence at an event does not always generate belonging. Thus, they argue that “open and inclusive scholarly spaces need to be created that include multiple knowledge systems, ontologies, and epistemologies” (p. 66). This paper truly amplifies the continued call to decolonise occupational science, and like the two preceding papers also provides concrete strategies for moving this work forward.

The subsequent papers share important theoretical developments and empirical findings from authors situated across several continents. Peters et al. (2024) contribute to the scholarship of teaching and learning about occupation with their paper focused on ‘doing’ decolonization in education. Addressing discourses in the discipline aimed at social transformation (e.g., Farias et al., 2017), they speak to the potential of adopting transdisciplinary approaches in education. Specifically, they draw on Katzman’s (2015) approach to embodied reflexivity to reflect on their efforts to engage in decolonial transdisciplinary praxis within health professional education. Their work was explicitly situated within an emancipatory framework committed to social justice. Their experiences are presented in relation to three key areas: a) exploring how to un-discipline ourselves; b) embracing the vulnerability of decolonising the self; and c) intentionally occupying a liminal space. Echoing threads also woven into other articles in this special issue, Peters et al. speak to the need for ‘epistemic disobedience’ that integrates knowledges that are not constructed solely through western modernity (Mignolo, 2011). Thus, the authors emphasize the need for a pluriverse of knowledge within education.

Research papers focused on different populations across the life course and situated within a range of geographic contexts share important ‘glocal’ insights. Shetty and Nayar’s (2024) paper, like that of Drumond de Brito et al. (2024), acknowledges human’s relationship with nature by centering Indigenous perspectives in their work. They outline ways that colonialism and its lasting impacts, as well as the process of industrialization, have caused a separation from land (e.g., through forced displacement) with resulting lack of occupations for the tribal/Indigenous populations. The study, conducted with Adivasi communities in India, draws on narrative practices, including stories and songs, to understand connections between occupation, communities, and the environment (e.g., land-based practices such as farming and forestry). Drawing on the concept of symbiotic enmeshment that uses a fungi metaphor of connection, the authors, like others in this special issue, raise a call to action aimed at ‘foraging’ “occupations which are hidden, made invisible, and subjugated by the capitalist industrialization forces but pop out in people’s narrative and everyday doing of their occupational identities” (p. 98). In following the article by Peters et al. (2024), which is situated in the South African context, Shetty and Nayar also show the importance of paying close attention to geographical and historical dimensions for understanding the situatedness of occupation.

The papers by Shetty and Nayar (2024) and Ogura et al. (2024) contribute important understandings of intergenerational traditional occupations and their relationships to the environment and nature. Ogura et al. also focus on traditional farming practices that are under threat, though in this article the forces of globalization are the focus. Likewise, the authors similarly draw attention to geographic and historic contexts for understanding the meaning of small grains cultivation in Japan. The study draws on ethnographic, community-engaged research with visual methods. Findings are presented in two key sections. The first outlines the importance and meaning of small grains cultivation in the three communities studied, and the second identifies the meanings associated with this occupation. In addition to the thematic findings, the authors draw attention to nuanced differences between the different locations in the study, as well as across generations and genders of the participants.

Shifting toward a focus on children and youth, Wenger et al. (2024) adopt a range of approaches, including a literature review study and secondary analysis of an interview study and a meta-ethnography, to examine place-making from the perspectives of children. The findings pertaining to the secret hiding places, in particular, are presented across three themes. First, the authors describe the making of secret hiding places, which identifies the varied physical spaces and characteristics of hiding places (e.g., indoor or outdoor, etc.). Second, they outline the different purposes of secret hiding places, such as for facilitating play, the occupation of making the spaces themselves, as well as their social function. Third, they address the varied play occupations that occur within the secret hiding places, such as imaginative play, integrating materials, among others. Their study contributes to the broader literature on place-making within occupational science by contributing novel findings from the perspectives of children.

Reinhold and Mondaca (2024) also focus on youth in their paper, but from the perspectives of occupational therapists who work with ‘young-system-survivors’ in Germany. Their research acknowledges prevailing discourses of social inclusion but critically considers how children and youth with mental health issues are excluded despite such discourses. The study draws on knowledge and epistemologies from the Global South, including research and practice from Brazil and South Africa. In highlighting key learnings from Social Occupational Therapy in particular, the authors adopt a critical occupational perspective to focus on key elements of systemic change that are needed. They use a critical dialogical methodological approach to identify ways that the youth are ‘survivors’ of a capitalist and neoliberal system that ultimately fails them. Findings address the struggle for young-system-survivors to access opportunities in relation to three sub-themes: 1) affirming a client-centered stance and continuity; 2) creating possibilities by addressing context-specific demands; and 3) reflecting and enacting advocacy. Ultimately, they argue the need to involve youth in research and decision-making to develop more inclusive practices.

Like the previous article, the paper by Campos Junior et al. (2024a, b), available in Portuguese and English, focuses on mental health settings. Using a qualitative case study methodology, they examine ways the COVID-19 pandemic affected the occupations of users of a mental health service in Brazil. Drawing on the concepts of occupational disruption and occupational deprivation, the authors acknowledge the global impacts of the pandemic and draw on research from a range of countries to contextualize their study. They further highlight specific challenges that were faced in low- and middle-income countries during the pandemic. The Center of Convivência, which was the focus of the study, provides community-based care for people with mental health disorders. Use of the center declined during the pandemic and findings focus on users’ experiences of occupation at the center and at home to understand how these were impacted by pandemic-related restrictions. A key finding was that while their experiences of occupational disruption and deprivation were exacerbated by the pandemic by restricting their access to the center, given the exclusion many already faced in society their routines were not significantly altered as many were mostly at home, both prior to and during the pandemic, when they were not at the center. Thus, the study helped uncover “broader structural issues, shedding light on pre-existing social inequalities among users” (p. 158).

Also situated in the Brazilian context, the research by Menezes Vieira et al. (2024a, b), available in Portuguese and English, examines the occupations of older women in a socially vulnerable community. In outlining the vulnerabilities faced by these racialized women, the authors highlight the ongoing impacts of colonization and stress the need to adopt intersectional approaches. In their descriptive-exploratory qualitative study, they consider multiple aspects of identity, including gender, age, race, and social class as inseparable. Findings point to ways that the historical context shapes contemporary experiences of care among the participants. In particular, Menezes Vieira et al. outline four categories or dimensions related to care as described by the participants: 1) household care and caring for others; 2) community care; 3) self-care; and 4) expanding the experiences of care in old age. The research shows that the forms of oppression and exploitation that stem from prevailing social vulnerability serve to limit the women’s occupational possibilities.

Bystrzycki and Kiepek (2024) draw on different national contexts to advance legal perspectives within occupational science focused on criminalization. In particular, they illustrate how occupations are variably sanctioned in relation to aspects like law, policy, and social norms. Like the paper by Drumond de Brito et al. (2024), these authors also critically interrogate the implications of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and similarly consider law, although in this paper the focus is on criminal rather than ancestral law. Thus, Bystrzycki and Kiepek explore the varied ways that laws influence understandings of occupations through two specific approaches for critical legal analysis. First, they use comparative legal research to show differences in criminalization across different places. Using the examples of Italy and Poland, they examine how criminalization impacts search and rescue activities to aid asylum seekers. Second, using the example of sex work as an occupation, they adopt a critical historical legal methodology to highlight changes across time. They make a compelling argument that occupations should not be deemed ‘unsanctioned’ based on legality given the dynamic nature of criminalization.

Finally, a commentary by Trimboli et al. (2024) shares ways that occupational science can contribute to knowledge development and support action regarding the diverse occupational implications of global migration. Thus, like the paper by Bystrzycki and Kiepek (2024), their work also brings attention to asylum seeking populations. Trimboli et al. suggest that occupational scientists and occupational therapists can make important contributions to migration theory and research, as well as to practice with clients who have forced migration experience. Their commentary explains the potential for existing theory to contribute to migration research in the discipline and that occupation-focused research can advance theorization in the interdisciplinary field of migration studies. In summarizing current migration research in occupational science, the authors also identify gaps and areas for future development that take into account key ethical and methodological considerations. Finally, Trimboli et al. highlight examples of some of the practices being used by therapists who are supporting people with forced migration experience and advocate for the use of occupational consciousness (Ramugondo, 2015) in doing so.

The theme for both the conference and special issue was purposefully left broad to encourage a range of submissions. In seeking ‘local to global perspectives’ on the relationship between occupation and society, the diverse contributors to this issue nonetheless articulate many complementary perspectives. A key thread within the papers is the importance of expanding beyond a western paradigm (e.g., epistemologies, etc.). This is reflected even in papers from studies conducted in the global north that are reflexive, situated, and not claiming their findings to be a universal norm. There was also attention paid to language across several papers and this is reflected in some articles and quotations being shared in multiple languages, such as Spanish, Portuguese, and German. Finally, a crucial message delivered by this issue is the need integrate and act on critical occupational perspectives to address the ongoing and inequitably distributed impacts of colonization, industrialization, and globalization.

Acknowledgement

The University of British Columbia and the venue where the inaugural World Occupational Science Conference was held are situated on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the Coast Salish Peoples, specifically the lands stewarded by the Musqueam, Suquamish, and Tsleil-Waututh nations. We also acknowledge the support of the International Society for Occupational Science in helping organize the inaugural World Occupational Science Conference, as well as all those who served on the many organizational committees. We thank Dr. Clare Hocking for her assistance while preparing the supplement of abstracts published in the Journal of Occupational Science, as well as this special issue.

Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.