Understanding Occupational Identity: Building on the Foundation of Occupational Science 

Ricardo C. Carrasco PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA

Jennifer Castelli OTD, OTR/L, CHT

Abstract 

Occupational science has an advanced understanding of how patterns of human participation are shaped, disrupted, and reformed across the lifespan. The concept of occupational disruption, as described most recently in the work of Ricardo C. Carrasco and Shirish Lala, highlights the dynamic ways individuals respond to internal and external change. This perspective

effectively captures alterations in routines, roles, and participation. The next step may be to seek an understanding of why individuals respond differently to similar disruptions. This article introduces an emerging perspective that considers the role of occupational identity as a potential influence on how participation is experienced and sustained. From this view, disruption may occur not only at the level of observable occupational patterns but also within deeper processes related to meaning, coherence, and direction. By expanding the lens to include processes related to meaning, coherence, and direction, occupational science may further bridge observable engagement with lived experience. This perspective offers implications for practice and research, particularly in contexts involving transition, stress, and adaptation.

Keywords: Occupational science, occupational disruption, occupational identity, participation, meaning, clinical reasoning

Understanding occupational identity: Building on the foundation of occupational science 

Occupational science has long helped us understand occupation as a thread running through a lifetime, connecting what people do, how they do it, and why those occupations matter (Blank et al., 2015; Christiansen, 1999). As occupational therapists, we recognize that participation is not random. Our daily occupations reflect tempo and temporality, meaning, context, culture, and lived experience across the lifespan (Clark, 1997). Carrasco and Lala (2025), through their work in occupational science, have further illuminated how life events, both expected and unexpected, shape occupational participation, and in particular, our understanding of occupational disruption and occupational balance, reminding us that disruption is not an exception, but a common and deeply human experience. 

Occupational Disruption as a Normal Human Experience 

The work of Carrasco and Lala (2025) helped frame occupational disruption as a natural response to change, whether that change is positive, such as starting a new role or life transition, or challenging, such as illness, loss, or societal disruption.  The emerging corresponding Scale of Occupational Disruption (Carrasco & Lala, 2025) further advanced the field of OT by supporting our ability to understand and quantify this lived phenomenon. Framing occupational disruption as a normal human experience reinforces a core occupational science principle: people are occupational beings, continuously organizing their lives through doing, adapting, and re-balancing in response to change. 

A Question from Practice

A question often arises in both practice and education: Why do similar disruptions affect people so differently? Some individuals adapt quickly. Others struggle to re-establish engagement. Many experience burnout, misfit, or prolonged imbalance, even when resources and supports are available (Nizzero et al., 2017). As clinicians, we see this every day in the client who follows recommendations but does not sustain change, the student who has the skills but lacks direction, or the individual whose routines return, but the meaning does not. These observations suggest that disruption may extend beyond specific occupations and affect the broader patterns of everyday life and participation (Nizzero et al., 2017; Wilcock, 1993). This raises an important question: Why do some individuals re-establish coherent engagement following disruption while others continue to struggle despite available support? One possible avenue for exploration is the role of occupational identity.

Expanding the Lens: Considering Occupational Identity  

 Building on occupational science foundations, an emerging perspective is to consider whether occupational identity may shape how occupational lives are organized (Castelli, 2026). Hansson et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of occupational identity in shaping meaning, participation, and lived experience, providing a foundation for further exploration of identity’s role in engagement. From the perspective proposed here, occupational identity can be understood as the relatively stable ways individuals organize meaning, make decisions, and engage in daily life (Castelli, 2026). 

A Layered Understanding of Disruption

 This perspective invites us to think about disruption at multiple levels.

Participation level. What we see are observable changes in occupational engagement, including how roles are enacted in daily life. 

Pattern level. The patterns of engagement are expressed through habits, routines, and roles that structure daily life.

Organizing level. How individuals experience coherence, meaning, and continuity in their occupational lives (Castelli, 2026). 

Carrasco and Lala (2025) focus primarily on disruptions observable in occupational participation and patterns of engagement. Expanding the lens to include organizing processes may help explain why some disruptions resolve more easily while others persist. 

Implications for Practice and Occupational Science

Considering this broader perspective does not replace existing models, it builds on them. It may help us better understand variability in response to disruption, connect observable participation with lived experience of meaning and recognize when restoring routines is not enough. Exploring new directions for research related to occupational identity, coherence, and engagement may be especially relevant in areas such as mental health, trauma-informed care, chronic stress, and life transitions (Castelli, 2026). 

Conclusion

Occupational science continues to deepen our understanding of how participation is shaped, disrupted, and reformed. As the field evolves, there is value in exploring not only patterns of occupation but also the processes that organize those patterns. By building on foundational concepts such as occupational disruption and considering the role of occupational identity, we may move toward a more complete understanding of human occupation, one that connects what people do with how they experience meaning, coherence and direction of their lives.

References

Blank, A. A., Harries, P., & Reynolds, F. (2015). ‘Without Occupation You Don’t Exist’: Occupational Engagement and Mental Illness. Journal of Occupational Science, 22(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2014.882250

Carrasco, R.C. & Lala, S. (2025). Occupational disruption: An undeniable reality for occupational beings, Part I. Florida Occupational Therapy Association. 

Castelli, J. (2026, April 23). Beyond behavior: Re-centering occupational identity as the core of occupational science [Poster presentation]. AOTA INSPIRE Annual Conference & Expo 2026, Anaheim, CA, United States.

Christiansen, C. (1999). Defining Lives: Occupation as Identity: An Essay on Competence, Coherence, and the Creation of Meaning. American Journal Occupational Therapy November/December Vol. 53(6), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.53.6.547

Clark, F. (1997). Reflections on the human as an occupational being: Biological need, tempo and temporality. Journal of Occupational Science, 4(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.1997.9686424

Nizzero, A., Cote, P., & Cramm, H. (2017). Occupational disruption: A scoping review. Journal of Occupational Science, 24(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2017.1306791

Wilcock, A. (1993). A theory of the human need for occupation. Journal of Occupational Science, 1(1), 17– 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.1993.9686375