Empirical lessons about occupational categorization from case studies of unemployment

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Scrutiny regarding the typological categorization of occupation (e.g., occupation as work, rest, or leisure) has prompted interest in experiential categories as a less exclusionary alternative. Empirical research can extend the dialogue about categorization by demonstrating how people in particular situations apply and generate occupational categories. PURPOSE: This article explores how adults without work utilized typological and experiential categorizations when discussing their occupations. METHOD: Data were generated via a secondary analysis of interview transcripts from three ethnographic case studies. FINDINGS: Study consultants gravitated toward experiential rather than typological categorizations, emphasizing the social, chosen, purposeful, and temporal qualities of their occupational engagement. IMPLICATIONS: Occupational therapy practitioners and researchers must explicitly state how and why they categorize occupations with clients and research participants. Whereas typological categories can be used to initiate discussions about occupation, open questions paired with consultant-generated experiential categories may better capture occupational engagement and reveal potential injustices in situations like unemployment