Strengths 21


There has been limited research in OS and OT literature, linking occupation to identity, although more research studies are beginning to emerge. Existing research studies exploring OI (see Table 1) have primarily used qualitative methods, mainly generic qualitative interviews, narrative methodology, and life history methodology. Other research studies in the field have made reference to identity in their findings, however it has not been a primary focus of attention.

Relevant research appears to be what funding agencies and greater political and societal discourses demand, and is often associated with notions of action, application, and advocacy (Rylko-Bauer, Singer, & Van Willigen, 2006). Research studies have begun to articulate the relevance of OI research by highlighting implications with respect to OT practice (Christiansen, 1999; Collins, 2007; Howie, Coulter, & Feldman, 2004; Lysack & Seipke, 2002; Unruh, 2004), which may be considered a strength regarding its conceptualization. Researchers are beginning to link OI with constructs such as

occupational participation (Vrkljan & Miller Polgar, 2007) and spirituality (Collins, 2007; Unruh, Versnel, & Kerr, 2002), which I contend is just the beginning of an important line of scholarship.

1.4.2 Drawbacks

Historically, identity has been a highly researched concept in sociology, psychology, philosophy, and anthropology literature. There are many existing theories that have not been explored utilizing an occupational perspective. As a result, I have discovered that OI is lacking a solid philosophical and theoretical foundation, and

contend that it would benefit from exploring and importing contemporary theories from other disciplines to inform OI theory. Christiansen (1999, 2004) makes some brief references to theorists such as Maslow, Deci, Ryan, Piaget, and Mead, however the connection between their work and further conceptualizations of OI is unclear. These theories are also highly individualistic in nature, and do not necessarily address issues beyond the person which may also be implicated in identity.

The majority of existing research has focused on occupational identities for adults and older adults (Howie, Coulter, & Feldman, 2004; Laliberte-Rudman 2002; Lysack & Seipke, 2002; Magnus, 2001; Reynolds, 2003). This intense focus has left a significant gap in knowledge with respect to children with or without disabilities and the

construction of OI. No research to date has approached the issue of occupation and identity from a child’s perspective. Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding of occupation and identity throughout childhood and adolescence is essential to advancing this construct.

Conceptualizations to date operate under assumptions that have not been

thoroughly unpacked and challenged. It has been assumed that occupations contributing to OI are freely chosen. What has not been addressed or problematized are the conditions that allow for “free choice”. I question the true level of consciousness available in

decision-making in light of social and political parameters, demands, norms, and expectations. I also question whether choice is perceived by the individual or by the broader social world. Granted, Christiansen (2004) admits that not all activities are freely chosen, as we are influenced by habits, routines, physiological factors, and environmental factors. However, in-depth discussions regarding social and political factors and the

implications for free choice have started to take place in the occupational science field (Whiteford & Hocking, 2012).

The notion that occupations contributing to OI are individualistic, goal-directed, and lead to future possibilities is largely based on Western cultural assumptions. A dominant discourse exists within this domain, focusing on self-efficacy, self-confidence, self-esteem, personal success, personal motivators, personal goals/achievements, and personality traits with respect to how they contribute to OI. What is not addressed is the notion of collective occupations, and collective identities. Dickie, Cutchin, and Humphry (2006) advocate for the need for a collective understanding of occupation, as “occupation is rarely, if ever individual in nature” (p. 83). There is also a great focus on the future and possible selves, which is not necessarily a focus of cultures outside of the Western view. This leads to barriers in utilizing this construct in cross-cultural contexts, as not all cultures value the individual in the same way as North American cultures.

As we continue to conceptualize constructs such as OI, it is important to consider that in general, occupational science research focuses more meticulously on the

individual determinants of occupation (Dickie, Cutchin, & Humphry, 2006; Hocking, 2012; Molineux & Whiteford, 2006). Molineux and Whiteford (2006) suggest that this may be attributed to the history of occupational therapy and dominant Western values concerning the individual versus the collective. This perspective has been criticized for its limited forms of knowing and alienation of diverse cultures (Molineux & Whiteford, 2006). As a result, the knowledge privileged within occupational science, in this case with respect to OI, may have limited cultural transferability. This is not to imply that this research is not useful and necessary, but that in order for constructs to be conceptualized

and to make sense to other epistemic cultures, we as occupational scientists need to consider ways of knowing beyond the individualistic view. In addition, Hocking (2012) contends “it seems clear that occupational scientists need to move beyond (often romanticized) accounts of individualized experiences if the discipline is to make any contribution to understanding and responding to the occupational issues of people who experience systematic disadvantages and marginalization” (p. 59). This would include children with disabilities.

1.5 Rationale

Children with disabilities are at risk for limited opportunities to engage in childhood occupations (Heah, Case, McGuire, & Law, 2007). Considering identities are shaped and reshaped by what we do, limited opportunities to engage in occupations inherently threaten the construction of identity (Christiansen, 1999). Parents’ values and preferences, particularly their personal sense of enjoyment and opinions pertaining to the child’s best interest, play a dominant role in what occupations children with disabilities are able to participate in (Heah et al., 2007). Vigilance also plays a role in opportunities to engage in occupations, as parents may feel the need to be more guarded about the occupations their children engage in because of the nature of their disabilities, potential safety risks, lack of supportive social structures, potential for inappropriate interactions with other children, and a history of unaccommodating and discriminatory experiences (Baker & Donnelly, 2001; Heah at al., 2007). These factors are likely to shape

The majority of existing OI research has focused on the occupational identities of adults and older adults transitioning through illness and post-retirement years (Howie, Coulter, & Feldman, 2004; Laliberte-Rudman 2002; Lysack & Seipke, 2002; Magnus, 2001; Reynolds, 2003). This intense focus has left a significant gap in terms of advancing knowledge with respect to children and the construction of identity through occupation. Although scholars have suggested that OI develops throughout the lifespan (Christiansen, 1999; Kielhofner, 2008; Unruh, 2004) and some early conceptual work has emerged, no research to date in the occupational science or occupational therapy fields have

systematically studied how occupation is implicated in the shaping of identity for children.

Traditionally, there has been an emphasis on researching occupational constructs using individualistic frameworks (Hammell, 2009; Hocking, 2012; Molineux &

Whiteford, 2006, Phelan & Kinsella, 2009). Similarly, traditional identity theory work maintains a strong focus on individualistic perspectives. Yet, those who draw on socio- cultural perspectives call for increased attention to socially oriented perspectives in order to study how identities are formed, shaped and reshaped through social and cultural experiences (Gergen 1994, 2000; Taylor, 1992). I contend that this perspective has much potential for advancing knowledge in occupation-based literature, and for potentially contributing to ideas that may be applicable in different cultures, societies and epistemic communities.

In summary three problems provide a rationale for this research:

1) There is little research on how occupations are implicated in the shaping of identity in children.

2) Children with disabilities appear to be particularly at risk for restricted opportunities to engage in occupations due to socio-cultural factors. 3) There is little research on OI from a socio-cultural perspective.