Dana,
Good opinion! Remember Ron, you cannot see the "occupation" trademark.
Irene
-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dichotomy of teaching OT
Ron,
You're what I call a "Social Occupational Therapist," the OT version of a Social Psychologist. The other type of psychologist is the BioPsychologist. In my opinion, there is a tremendous lack of "Bio Occupational Therapists." In essense, the difference is studying the field at a Macro vs. Micro Level. This has been a deep debate in the Philosophy of Science. Which is better? Which is necessary? The answer is both.
Imagine what psychology would be if purists took over. The entire field would be doing psychoanalysis. What made Psychology such a booming field is that they expanded their scope of research and practice... So much so that there is an entire medical specialty (Psychiatry, obviously) based on Biopsychology.
Here's what it comes down to... You want to focus on Occupation (Macrolevel)... But occupation is accomplished through micro-level processes (e.g., UE strength). IMHO, if OT wants to grow, it will need to be thoroughly knowledgeable at both micro and macro levels. What will distinguish us from PT is that we can (and will hopefully) focus our efforts at both levels while PT focuses on only the micro level.
Just my opinion.
Dana
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:03:52 -0400, Ron Carson wrote:
>Today, �in �my �human occupation class, I spent a solid hour
>discussing
>occupational �performance as it relates to role competence. The
>theory,
>as � written � in �Christiansen �and �Baum's, �"Enabling �Function
>and
>Well-being", �is �that �humans �engage �in �occupation �in �order to
>be
>competent �at �their �roles. �And that role competence is a
>fundamental
>drive �of �healthy humans. The point of the lecture is to help
>students
>begin �to �gather �some �understanding of the necessity, complexity
>and
>depth of enabling occupation in their future clients.
>
>At �the �completion �of �class, �a �student �held �up a poster that
>was
>requesting �volunteers �or �announcing a presentation or something.
>The
>research and poster were about UE Muscle Strength. I asked the
>students
>if �they �were �confused by this dichotomy that we had just had a
>class
>about �human �occupation �and �why �OT �should �not �be �practiced
>like
>upper-extremity PT and then to be doing research on UE function.
>
>One �student �responded �that �it �was �confusing and the other
>student
>seemed �confused. �And �frankly, I'm confused!! It seems like some
>OT's
>see �UE function as our trademark practice pattern while other OT's
>see
>occupation �as �our �trademark. �I �am �confused by this situation,
>can
>anyone help??????
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ron
>
>*********��***********
>
>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]
>
>*********��***********
>
>
Dana Levinson
Rehab Science, Inc.
http://www.rehabscience.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*********��***********
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]
*********��***********
