Title

Keeping the OS Model Strong

Start Time

5-10-2012 1:00 PM

End Time

5-10-2012 1:30 PM

Session Type

Event

Abstract

Intent: Address the ‘staying power” of OS. Question is: What does OS need to do stay relevant to (strong and influential in) academia and occupational therapy?

Argument: OS must successfully meet the dual challenges set out by its founders of being a vibrant academic discipline (area of study) and of being a guiding force to the implementation of effective occupational therapy practice (application of a service profession)

Importance to OS: OS is best described as a conceptual model designed to create a body of knowledge for study and to guide the organization of that knowledge into a skill set needed to apply and practice occupational therapy (Fawcett, 2000; Yerxa et al., 1989). This presentation focuses on reviewing the role and characteristics of a conceptual model in creating, organizing, and communicating knowledge in a professional discipline and the ability of OS to meet those challenges (Abbott, 1988; Thomas, 2000, Zemke & Clark, 1996). Some major issues for OS appear to be clarifying the central concepts (person, occupations, and environment), increasing the understanding of the occupational being, differentiating occupation (occupational state of being) from occupations (occupational doing in context), expanding the focus of the assessment process to interview and self assessment and organizing the various practice models into understandable groups based on the central concepts.

Conclusion: OS has established a good start but needs to focus study on the core concepts, better ways to organize the knowledge and communicate the results to occupational therapy practice

Discussion questions:

  1. What is the philosophy of OS?
  2. Should an OT curriculum be based on a conceptual model or on practice settings?

References

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Clark, F. & Lawlor, M.C. (2009). The making and mattering of occupational science. In: E.B. Crepeau, E.S. Cohn, B.A.B. Schell (Eds.). Willard & Spackman’s occupational therapy, (11th ed., pp. 2-14). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer

Fawcett, J. (2000). Structure of contemporary nursing knowledge. In: J. Faucett. Analysis and evaluation of contemporary nursing knowledge (pp. 3-33). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis

Thomas, R.M. (2000) Comparing theories of child development. 5th ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning

Yerxa, E., Clark, F., Frank, G., Jackson, J., Parham, D., Pierce, D., Stein, C., Zemke, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1989). An introduction to occupational science: A foundation for occupational therapy in the 21st century. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 6, 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J003v06n04_04

Zemke, R. & Clark, F. (1996). Occupational science: The evolving discipline. Philadelphia, F.A. Davis.

Comments

Theoretical paper

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Oct 5th, 1:00 PM Oct 5th, 1:30 PM

Keeping the OS Model Strong

Intent: Address the ‘staying power” of OS. Question is: What does OS need to do stay relevant to (strong and influential in) academia and occupational therapy?

Argument: OS must successfully meet the dual challenges set out by its founders of being a vibrant academic discipline (area of study) and of being a guiding force to the implementation of effective occupational therapy practice (application of a service profession)

Importance to OS: OS is best described as a conceptual model designed to create a body of knowledge for study and to guide the organization of that knowledge into a skill set needed to apply and practice occupational therapy (Fawcett, 2000; Yerxa et al., 1989). This presentation focuses on reviewing the role and characteristics of a conceptual model in creating, organizing, and communicating knowledge in a professional discipline and the ability of OS to meet those challenges (Abbott, 1988; Thomas, 2000, Zemke & Clark, 1996). Some major issues for OS appear to be clarifying the central concepts (person, occupations, and environment), increasing the understanding of the occupational being, differentiating occupation (occupational state of being) from occupations (occupational doing in context), expanding the focus of the assessment process to interview and self assessment and organizing the various practice models into understandable groups based on the central concepts.

Conclusion: OS has established a good start but needs to focus study on the core concepts, better ways to organize the knowledge and communicate the results to occupational therapy practice

Discussion questions:

  1. What is the philosophy of OS?
  2. Should an OT curriculum be based on a conceptual model or on practice settings?