{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025278293135435993, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018552875695732839, 'mean_word_length': 4.727755644090306, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Specification of Our Language

In my last editorial, I indicated that OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health was an important forum for both occupational therapy science (OTS) and occupational science (OS), anticipating that having a joint forum would support the transitional works necessary for each to benefit from the other. Central to any transitional endeavor is clarity in language, in this case clarity in the language of occupation. Although achieving clarity in language is difficult for any discipline, I believe it is particularly problematic for those of us concerned with occupation. I further believe this is the case because we have fallen into the trap of trying to find one single term to capture the complexities of the domain of our concern. While opinion has differed over the history of our profession as to what that term should be, we, at all times, have focused on using one term at a time. In the early days of our profession, we used the term occupation to both capture our domain of concern and to name the profession. However, this was short-lived; not long after the inception of our profession we abandoned the term for all purposes except to name the profession. We did this for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that we were uncomfortable with the idea that the term conveyed. On the one hand, the term suggested that our work was trivial (i.e., that we were simply concerned with “occupying” people). On the other hand, it suggested that our concern was confined to considerations of paid work. Neither was acceptable. For a considerable portion of our history, we described ourselves as being concerned with activity, most particularly the therapeutic use of activity. However, this too had its problems; most notably it embedded our profession firmly in a medical paradigm. With the shift away from that paradigm at the end of the last century, and the call to return to our roots, the term occupation re-emerged as the term of choice. However, little was done to resolve the issues that had led to its disuse in the first instance. This is equally problematic in everyday practice and in research. In both arenas, it is essential that we use our language in a manner that is meaningful and sensible to our clients and our colleagues, be they fellow practitioners or researchers. In the December 2004 issue of the Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, an issue focused on occupation, some colleagues and I published the Taxonomic Code for Occupational Performance (TCOP) (Polatajko et al., 2004). The intention of this code is to offer an alternative to having to use one, and only one, term to describe our domain of concern, with all its complexities. The TCOP provides seven levels of specificity for our language of occupation, allowing us to describe our domain of concern in a manner that is meaningful to all. The TCOP has an hierarchical structure, as all taxonomic classifications do, with each level being more complex than that below and each level subsuming all the levels below it. The seven levels (voluntary movements, movement pattern, action, task, activity, occupation, and occupational grouping) make it possible to describe occupational performance in a manner that is meaningful and sensible to all. Thus, rather than having to talk about the occupation of flexing a finger joint, opposing the thumb and index finger, holding a pencil, making the letter “a,” writing a letter to a friend, or being a professional writer, we can talk about voluntary movements, movement patterns, actions, tasks, and occupation, respectively. The authors of the TCOP introduced it, not as the final word on a taxonomic code for our discussion of occupation, but rather as a first step in the adoption of a language that allows for the specification of our domain of concern with all its complexities. I, as one of the authors, and as the editor of OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, draw your attention to the TCOP in the hope that it can facilitate your discussion of our domain of concern, be it in interaction with your clients, your professional colleagues, or your research community. I am interested in your feedback and your experience with the TCOP in the hope that in the future it can guide the language used in this journal.