Editorial

Anyone who has tracked the growth of occupational science will have observed the increasing scope of the discipline. Amongst the many concepts of interest, discussion of a few ideas has endured over the decades. Three of these feature in this issue of the Journal of Occupational Science: occupational balance, people’s experience of participating in occupation, and a temporal perspective of occupation changing over an evolutionary time frame, the human lifespan, and as individuals learn and develop skills and capacities. In her introduction to occupational science, published in the first issue of the first volume of the Journal of Occupational Science: Australia (later renamed as JOS), Yerxa (1993) emphasised the discipline’s roots in occupational therapy and its promise “to provide a substantive knowledge base for the profession” (p. 4). In itemising the dilemmas of occupational therapy practice that this new science would address, Yerxa pointed to the notion of balance (the daily round of work, play, rest, and sleep). She, like occupational therapists before her and the occupational science scholars and researchers who would follow, pinned the idea of balance to Meyer, an American psychiatrist who published in first issue of the Archives of Occupational Therapy in 1922. Wilcock (1993), also publishing in the inaugural issue of Journal of Occupational Science: Australia, extended the discussion. Balance, she maintained, is foundational to health. At a biological level, it is maintained through the mechanisms of homeostasis. Behaviourally, Wilcock maintained, “balanced and stimulating use of physical, mental and social capacities” (p. 22) enhanced health. Accordingly, engaging in a range of occupations would “provide balance between physical, mental and social challenges and relaxation” (p. 23). Wilcock argued, however, that the technologies that have altered lifestyles in post-industrial societies have altered occupational structures to an extent that human life is out of step with our biology and with sustaining the ecology. The apparent complexity of occupational balance is taken up in this issue. Liu, Zemke, Liang, and McLaughlin Gray (2023) offer both a review of the concept and, noting that it has not been taken up outside Western societies, offer an Eastern perspective. Their Model of Occupational Harmony integrates the multiple viewpoints various authors have taken to the concept, ranging from the biological rhythms Wilcock emphasised to occupational balance as the patterns or characteristics of occupation, time use, and need satisfaction. Rather than holding each of these perspectives as distinct, the model suggests how they might be considered as a coherent whole, thus “allowing occupational scientists to embrace the complexity of the orchestration of occupational engagement” (p. 145). Interest in conceptualising occupational balance in this integrated manner is high: This was the 8 most downloaded JOS article in 2022. Taking a different tack, Perreault and Power (2023) place the discussion of balance within neo-liberal discourse, which both narrows the focus to the work-life balance and ascribes responsibility to manage conflicts between work and personal life to the individual. Recognising this situation as maladaptive, they argue