A vision for occupational science: Reflecting on our disciplinary culture

Journal of Occupational Science

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 136-146

  Rudman, Debbie Laliberte ^a   Dennhardt, Silke ^b   Fok, Daniel ^a   Huot, Suzanne ^a   Molke, Daniel ^a   Park, Anna ^a   Zur, Briana ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b NONE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Dialogue; Discipline; Pluralism; Reflexivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 55049127647     PISSN: 14427591     EISSN: 21581576     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14427591.2008.9686623     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Abrams, D. B. (2006). Applying transdisciplinarity research strategies to understanding and eliminating health disparities. Health Education & Behavior, 33, 515-531.
2. Amariglio, J., Resnick, S., & Wolff, R. (1993). Division and difference in the ‘discipline’ of economics. In E. Messer-Davidow, D. Shumway & D. Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinarity (pp. 150-184). Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
3. Barber, M. D. (2006). Occupational science and the first-person perspective. Journal of Occupational Science, 13(1), 94-96.
4. Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1-22.
5. Blanche, E. I., & Henny-Kohler, E. (2000). Philosophy, science and ideology: A proposed relationship for occupational science and occupational therapy. Occupational Therapy International, 7, 99-110.
6. Boxer, M. J. (2000). Unruly knowledge: Women’s studies and the problem of disciplinarity. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 12, 119-129.
7. Camic, C., & Joas, H. (2004). The dialogic turn. In C. Camic, & H. Joas (Eds.), The dialogic turn: New roles for sociology in a postdisciplinary age (pp. 1-10). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
8. Carlson, M., & Dunlea, A. (1995). Further thoughts on the pitfalls of partition: A response to Mosey. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49, 73-81.
9. Christiansen, C. H. (1990). The perils of plurality. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 10, 259-265.
10. Clark, F (2006). One person’s thoughts on the future of occupational science. Journal of Occupational Science, 13(3), 167-179.
11. Clark, F, Zemke, R., Frank, G., Parham, D., Neville-Jan, A., Hedricks, C. et al. (1993). The issue is - Dangers inherent in the partition of occupational therapy and occupational science. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 184-186.
12. Dickie, V, Cutchin, M. P., & Humphry, R. (2006). Occupation as transactional experience: A critique of individualism in occupational science. Journal of Occupational Science, 13(1), 83-93.
13. Dunn, T., & Hocking, C. (2001). Occupational terminology. Journal of Occupational Science, 8(2), 38-41.
14. Feyerabend, P. (1988). Against method. New York: Verso.
15. Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 531-545.
16. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors toward nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121-150.
17. Friedman, J. I. (2003). Will innovation flourish in the future? Industrial Physicist, 8(6), 22-25.
18. Gobo, G. (2004). Globalizing methodology: Multi-cultural societies vs. mono-cultural research methods or the decline of globalized methodology. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.sociol.unimi.it/papers/gobo2.pdf
19. Good, G. A. (2000). The assembly of geophysics: Scientific disciplines as a framework for consensus. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Psychics, 31, 259-292.
20. Guiliano, K. K., Tyer-Viola, L., & Lopez, R. P. (2005). Unity of knowledge in the advancement of nursing knowledge. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18, 243-248.
21. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs & women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
22. Harding, S. (1992). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics and ‘strong objectivity.’ Social Research, 59, 567-587.
23. Harding, S. (2002). Must the advance of science advance global inequality? The International Studies Review, 4, 87-105.
24. Heilbron, J. (2004). A regime of disciplines. In C. Camic, & H. Joas (Eds.), The dialogic turn: New roles for sociology in a postdisciplinary age (pp. 23-42). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
25. Hesse, H. (1990). The glass bead game. New York: Picador. (Original work published 1943)
26. Hocking, C. (2000). Occupational science: A stock take of accumulated insights. Journal of Occupational Science, 7(2), 58-67.
27. Holmes, D., & Gastaldo, D. (2004). Rhizomatic thought in nursing: An alternative path for the development of a discipline. Nursing Philosophy, 5, 258-267.
28. Ilott, I., & Mounter, C. (2000). Occupational science: An impossible dream or an agenda for action? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 238-240.
29. Iwama, M. (2005). Kawa (river) model: Nature, life flow, and the power of culturally relevant occupational therapy. In E Kronenberg, S. Algado, & N. Pollard (Eds.), Occupational therapy without borders: Learning from the spirit of survivors (pp. 213-231). Edinburgh, UK: Elsevier, Churchill Livingstone.
30. Kao, H. S., Hsu, M., & Clark, L. (2004). Conceptualizing and critiquing culture in health research. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 15, 269-277.
31. Kratochwil, E. (2003). The monologue of ‘science’. International Studies Review, 5, 124-128.
32. Kuhn, T. (1972). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33. Lapid, Y. (2003). Through dialogue to engaged pluralism. International Studies Review, 5, 128-131.
34. Leonelli, S. (2005). Pluralism and normativity in interdisciplinary research. Graduate Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 1-6.
35. Lunt, A. (1997). Occupational science and occupational therapy: Negotiating the boundary between a discipline and a profession. Journal of Occupational Science: Australia, 4(2), 56-61.
36. Lynam, M. J., Browne, A. J., Reimer Kirkham, S., & Anderson, J. M. (2007). Re-thinking the complexities of ‘culture’: What might we learn from Bourdieu? Nursing Inquiry, 14, 23-34.
37. Mancia, J. R., & Gastaldo, D. (2004). Production and consumption of science in a global context. Nursing Inquiry, 11, 65-66.
38. Matsumoto, D. (Ed.). (2001). The handbook of culture & psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Matthews, M. (2004). Thomas Kuhn’s impact on science education: What lessons can be learned? Science Education, 88, 90-118.
40. McNeill, D. (1999). On interdisciplinary research: With particular relevance to the field of environment and development. Higher Education Quarterly, 53, 312-332.
41. Messer-Davidow, E., Shumway D., & Sylvan, D. (1993). Introduction. In E. Messer-Davidow, D. Shumway, & D. Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinarity (pp. 1-21). Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
42. Molineux, M., & Whiteford, G. (2006). Occupational science: Genesis, evolution and future contribution. In E. Duncan (Ed.), Foundations for practice in occupational therapy (pp. 297-313). London: Elsevier.
43. Molke, D., Laliberte Rudman, D., & Polatajko, H. J. (2004). The promise of occupational science: A developmental assessment of an emerging academic discipline. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 269-281.
44. Mosey, A. (1992). The issue is - Partition of occupational science and occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 851-853.
45. Mosey, A. (1993). The issue is - Partition of occupational science and occupational therapy: Sorting out some issues. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 751-754.
46. Neumann, I. B. (2003). International relations as emergent Bakhtinian dialogue. International Studies Review, 5, 137-143.
47. Pickering, A. (1993). Anti-discipline or narratives of illusion. In E. Messer-Davidow, D. Shumway, & D. Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinarity (pp. 103-122). Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
48. Polatajko, H. (2004). The study of occupation. In C. Christiansen & E. Townsend (Eds.), Introduction to occupation: The art and science of living (pp. 29-46). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
49. Polatajko, H. (2007). Occupation: What’s in a word, anyway? OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 27, 82-83.
50. Putnam, L. L. (2001). Shifting voices, oppositional discourse and new visions for communication studies. Journal of Communication, 51, 38-51.
51. Reich, S. M., & Reich, J. A. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 51-62.
52. Rylko-Bauer, B., Singer, M., & Willigen, J. (2006). Reclaiming applied anthropology: Its past, present and future. American Anthropologist, 108, 178-190.
53. Schoenberger, E. (2001). Interdisciplinarity and social power. Progress in Human Geography, 25, 365-382.
54. Shiva, V (1993). Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. London: Zed books.
55. Smelser, N. J. (2004). Interdisciplinarity in theory and practice. In C. Camic & H. Joas (Eds.), The dialogic turn: New roles for sociology in a postdisciplinary age (pp. 43-64). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
56. Staeheli, L. A., & Mitchell, D. (2005). The complex politics of relevance in geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95, 357-372.
57. Torres, S. (1999). A culturally-relevant theoretical framework for the study of successful ageing. Ageing and Society, 19, 33-51.
58. Townsend, E. (1997). Occupation: Potential for personal and social transformation. Journal of Occupational Science: Australia, 4(1), 18-26.
59. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press.
60. Whiteford, G., & Wilcock, A. A. (2000). Cultural relativism: Occupation and independence reconsidered. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 324-336.
61. Whiteford, G., Townsend, E., & Hocking, C. (2000). Reflections on a renaissance of occupation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67, 61-69.
62. Wicks, A. (2006). Occupational science: Generating an international perspective: Report on the inaugural occupational science think tank, Shoalhaven Campus, University of Wollongong, 19-21 July 2006: Australasian Occupational Science Centre (AOSC) on behalf of the International Society of Occupational Scientists (ISOS). Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://shoalhaven.uow.edu.au/aosc/publications/international _think_tank_2006.pdf
63. Wilcock, A. A. (2000). Development of a personal, professional and educational occupational philosophy: An Australian perspective. Occupational Therapy International, 7, 79-86.
64. Wilcock, A. A. (2001). Occupational science: The key to broadening horizons. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 412-517.
65. Yerxa, E. J. (1993). Occupational science: A source of power for participants in occupational therapy. Journal of Occupational Science: Australia, 1(1), 3-10.
66. Yerxa, E. J. (2000). Occupational science: A renaissance of service to humankind through knowledge. Occupational Therapy International, 7, 87-98.
67. Yerxa, E. J., Clark, F, Frank, G., Jackson, J., Parham, D., Pierce, D., et al. (1989). An introduction to occupational science: A foundation for occupational therapy in the 21st century. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 6(3/4), 1-17.
68. Ziolkowski, T. (1990). Foreword. In H. Hesse, (Ed.), The glass bead game (pp. vii-xix). New York: Picador. (Original work published 1943)