- Email: [email protected]
Contemporary Conceptual Foundations of Psychosocial Occupational Therapy
PART
II
Contemporary Conceptual Foundations of Psychosocial Occupational Therapy
I
n Chapters 1 and 2, we discussed the origins of occupational therapy and analyzed the intellectual contexts within which the profession developed. In Chapter 3, we continued to analyze the conceptual foundations of the profession, focusing on the psychological theories from which constructs used in psychosocial occupational therapy practice are derived. In Part II of this book, we will complete the discussion of the conceptual foundations of the profession. At the end of Chapter 2, we noted that a new paradigm of occupational therapy has emerged in the last two decades, culminating in articulation of what might be viewed as a paradigmatic consensus in the new Occupational Therapy Practice Framework (at least in occupational therapy literature; it is recognized that some therapists in practice may not yet be aware of the paradigm).1 In Part II of this book (Chapter 4), we will discuss this paradigm in detail. We will also examine the social/intellectual context that has influenced its emergence and the implications of the new paradigm to occupational therapy practice. One may wonder why so much space needs to be devoted to discussion of the professional paradigm. Would it not be more convenient to present the core constructs, principles, and guidelines spelled out in the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework and provide instructions on how to apply them in practice? In response to this question, it is argued that first of all, the Framework is not a prescription for practice techniques. It offers general guidelines that need to be interpreted by the therapist in order to apply them in practice. For example, the Framework
suggests that the therapeutic process revolves around “the collaborative therapeutic relationship between the client and the occupational therapist” (pp. 613-614).1 However, it does not give the therapist step-by-step directions about how this collaboration can be achieved. The therapist has to interpret this general guideline. Suppose that a clinician argues that collaborative treatment planning means that a therapist sets treatment goals, presents them for discussion with the client, and then convinces him or her that these goals should be achieved. Would such an interpretation be correct? In order to determine whether or not such an interpretation would be correct, one must understand the spirit of the Framework. One can compare it to the U.S. Constitution; an attorney has to understand the spirit of the Constitution in order to interpret it correctly for application in specific situations. Secondly, the Framework represents a consensus in occupational therapy literature, not only in the United States but all over the world, regarding what the nature of occupational therapy ought to be (there are other documents used to guide therapy in other countries, such as the Canadian Guidelines for Client-Centred Practice.2 The constructs on which these documents are based are similar to those underlying the Framework, such as occupation-centeredness, client-centeredness, collaboration, and so on). That is why it is argued that the Framework (along with other similar documents used in other countries) represents a distilled presentation of the new consensual professional paradigm. This consensus within the community of occupational therapists 75
76
Part II
Contemporary Conceptual Foundations of Psychosocial Occupational Therapy
constitutes the spirit of the paradigm. In order to interpret the guidelines of the Framework correctly, a therapist needs to understand the nature of this consensus, its context, and how it came to be. When that happens, the Framework becomes a guide to insightful practice. Since information about the evolution of the new paradigm is extensive, a complete discussion is not possible in a short chapter. Therefore, in this chapter, the goal is to sensitize the reader about the proposed
paradigmatic consensus, its context, and how it arose within the profession.
REFERENCES 1. American Occupational Therapy Association: Occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process, Am J Occup Ther 56(6):609-639, 2002. 2. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists: Occupational therapy guidelines for client-centred practice, Toronto, ON, 1991, CAOT Publications ACE.
II
Contemporary Conceptual Foundations of Psychosocial Occupational Therapy
I
n Chapters 1 and 2, we discussed the origins of occupational therapy and analyzed the intellectual contexts within which the profession developed. In Chapter 3, we continued to analyze the conceptual foundations of the profession, focusing on the psychological theories from which constructs used in psychosocial occupational therapy practice are derived. In Part II of this book, we will complete the discussion of the conceptual foundations of the profession. At the end of Chapter 2, we noted that a new paradigm of occupational therapy has emerged in the last two decades, culminating in articulation of what might be viewed as a paradigmatic consensus in the new Occupational Therapy Practice Framework (at least in occupational therapy literature; it is recognized that some therapists in practice may not yet be aware of the paradigm).1 In Part II of this book (Chapter 4), we will discuss this paradigm in detail. We will also examine the social/intellectual context that has influenced its emergence and the implications of the new paradigm to occupational therapy practice. One may wonder why so much space needs to be devoted to discussion of the professional paradigm. Would it not be more convenient to present the core constructs, principles, and guidelines spelled out in the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework and provide instructions on how to apply them in practice? In response to this question, it is argued that first of all, the Framework is not a prescription for practice techniques. It offers general guidelines that need to be interpreted by the therapist in order to apply them in practice. For example, the Framework
suggests that the therapeutic process revolves around “the collaborative therapeutic relationship between the client and the occupational therapist” (pp. 613-614).1 However, it does not give the therapist step-by-step directions about how this collaboration can be achieved. The therapist has to interpret this general guideline. Suppose that a clinician argues that collaborative treatment planning means that a therapist sets treatment goals, presents them for discussion with the client, and then convinces him or her that these goals should be achieved. Would such an interpretation be correct? In order to determine whether or not such an interpretation would be correct, one must understand the spirit of the Framework. One can compare it to the U.S. Constitution; an attorney has to understand the spirit of the Constitution in order to interpret it correctly for application in specific situations. Secondly, the Framework represents a consensus in occupational therapy literature, not only in the United States but all over the world, regarding what the nature of occupational therapy ought to be (there are other documents used to guide therapy in other countries, such as the Canadian Guidelines for Client-Centred Practice.2 The constructs on which these documents are based are similar to those underlying the Framework, such as occupation-centeredness, client-centeredness, collaboration, and so on). That is why it is argued that the Framework (along with other similar documents used in other countries) represents a distilled presentation of the new consensual professional paradigm. This consensus within the community of occupational therapists 75
76
Part II
Contemporary Conceptual Foundations of Psychosocial Occupational Therapy
constitutes the spirit of the paradigm. In order to interpret the guidelines of the Framework correctly, a therapist needs to understand the nature of this consensus, its context, and how it came to be. When that happens, the Framework becomes a guide to insightful practice. Since information about the evolution of the new paradigm is extensive, a complete discussion is not possible in a short chapter. Therefore, in this chapter, the goal is to sensitize the reader about the proposed
paradigmatic consensus, its context, and how it arose within the profession.
REFERENCES 1. American Occupational Therapy Association: Occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process, Am J Occup Ther 56(6):609-639, 2002. 2. Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists: Occupational therapy guidelines for client-centred practice, Toronto, ON, 1991, CAOT Publications ACE.