My sense of the student posting is as follows: The observation is accurate to a very minimal degree, in the sense that there are other professions who use activities in their work. Two professions that come to mind immediately are Art Therapy and Music Therapy. However, the choice of words in the post is an interesting one, "....there are many other professions who have used occupation in their everyday work." This statement is self-contradictory, in that one cannot use "occupation" *occupationally* without viewing activity from an occupational perspective. In my opinion the act of performing an activity without regard to its professional knowledge base (which also includes the required training and a demonstrable level of competence) does not render the activity similar or equivalent to it being performed by a professional who has the requisite knowledge/training.
In my opinion the writer of the post has probably mistaken the various early influences that may have informed OT in its formative years, and misconstrued them to be the same as Occupation. The idea of Occupation in my opinion is at the same time a very simple one, and yet a very complex one. Outside of this it is hard to say where the writer is coming from, and perhaps more importantly where the writer is going with the statement :-)) Best, Biraj P.S.: I try not to impose my professional jargon on others if at all possible. I would rather they gain a clearer understanding of my professional role in the practice setting I work at, rather than figure out occupational terminology. It is more important to me that I try to make the OT role transparent to my colleagues, rather than foist OT related academic concepts on them. From my perspective each one of us probably goes through the process of understanding and demystifying the idea of occupation; then we develop an appreciation of the idea for ourselves, after which I also believe that we need to develop the skills to articulate the idea of occupation in transparent language which is appreciable to other professionals and the public. If we constantly harp on the uniqueness of our focus *while using formal terminology* ad nauseum I am afraid that we would have missed the boat, and also would tend to be viewed as professionally myopic. Ron Carson wrote: > Here's an interesting message that I've cut from the OTnow discussion board. > > What are other's opinions about what this student says? > > Ron > > ====================================================================== > > What is Occupation article. > From: Occupational Science Student > Date: 22 Apr 2002 > Time: 11:46:06 > Remote Name: 204.31.49.107 > > Comments: > > I would just like to comment on the article defining occpation in the OT > news newsletter. As a student of OCCUPATIONAL science I am becoming a master > at defining occupation and where it has come from. I would to inform you, > Ron Carson, that "as a therapy profession" OTs do not own occupation. Yes, > OTs have put the name occupation out in the world as it is today. But, there > are many other professions who have used occupation in their everyday work. > Maybe you need to do a little more research before you say something like > that. If you were to go back into the history of OT you would know that > there are many relations between OT and various other professions in the use > of occupation, like I stated before the term occupation as we know it today > was brought into the professional world as we know now by OT, yet there is > not owner of the term occupation. If anyone knew anything they would > discount you as a good source of inofrmation. *********��*********** Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist ** List messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] *********��***********
