Using a feminist perspective, this paper explores the roots of the practice of healing and medicine. It traces the role of women in health care from prehistorical times, through the present, and into the future discussing the changing paradigms that the author identifies as (a) the Prototypic Paradigm: Mysticism and Healing; (b) the Scientific Paradigm: Curing; and (c) the Paradigm of Inclusion: Caring, Curing, and Healing. The role and status of women in society are reflected within these paradigms, and the changing status of the profession of occupational therapy is discussed within this framework. The unique skills and contributions of occupational therapy more closely fit within the Paradigm of Inclusion and can support us as health care leaders within the changing world of the 21st century.

A s collaborative guest editors, we Roxie Black Hamlin, Kathryn M. Loukas, are delighted to bring you this Jeanette Froehlich, Nancy MacRae landmark issue. Our profession is 93% to 95% female, compelling an examination of the effect of our demographics on occupational therapy. One method of examination is through a feminist perspective. Occupational therapy and feminism share many concepts: caring, connection, empowerment, nurturing. communication, and relationships. These concepts are reflected in the articles in this issue, which combine the ideologies of occupational therapy and feminism, and are echoed in our relatiOnships and working styles as collaborative guest editors. Feminism DefinedFeminism is a dynamic, evolving ieleology. Although historically it focused on equality for women, feminism has developed into an inclusive model of liberation for all people, with particular attention given to the status of women and the elimination of sexism. The early women's movement focused on the issues of white middle-class and upperclass women. More recentlY, women of color and working-class women have enlightened feminists regarding the influence of race, class, and culture on the status of an individual (Hooks, 1984).Through study and personal reflection, we define this inclusive model of feminism as personal empowerment and social justice for all Both components of this definition are important. Personal empowerment, inspiring people to believe in and act on their capabilities, is at the heart of feminist and occuparional rherapy theory and practice. However, personal empowerment alone is insufficient. Without a broad context that includes striving for enhancement of all life, personal empowerment is empty. The reverse is also problematic Action toward social roles in our society assign men the role justice without the strength of personal of dominam breadwinner and women empowerment is ineffective. the role of passive nurturer. These roles The inclusive vision of feminism suplimit the choices available for bOth men pOrts women and men in becoming and women. Men have been socialized more fully human Hooks (1984) Membership SurveyIn undertaking this issue, we understood that feminism is a concept fraught with controversy. This prompted us to develop a pilot survey to explore real" tions to feminism within the occupational therapy membership. Five surveys were sent to each president of a state occupational therapy association, who was then asked to distribute them to members. Of the 250 surveys mailed, 85 responses were returned. All regions of the country were represented and a male to female ratio of the respondents was 7.3% to 92.7%, similar to that of the national association. The survey asked for an initial reaction to the word(emi· nism, whether the respondents identi· fied themselves as feminists, whether they perceived feminist issues in occu· pational therapy, and for a personal definition of feminism. The initial reaction to the word feminism was negative for 46.2% of the respondents, whereas 27% had a p...

One of the dilemmas for occupational therapy fieldwork education is how to maintain and promote a holistic approach when our traditional model is a separatist one. Traditionally and historically, most Level II fieldwork education has been offered in 2- or 3-month experiences, with one affiliation being in a physical disabilities setting, another in a mental health setting, and a third, if chosen, in a pediatrics or specialty setting, although this arrangement has never been prescribed by AOTA. The shortage of psychosocial fieldwork sites and the increasing demands for efficacy have forced us to examine not only how we will meet the unrelenting need for sites but also how we will fulfill the expectations for effective and meaningful applied education for our students. Although health care delivery, and even health care reform, are reimbursement driven, we cannot abandon the humanistic and holistic values on which our profession was built. Reflection on our roots leads us to the importance of the inclusion of psychosocial considerations for every client. One way to accomplish this is to have sites that function within a medical model, where the primary focus is biological, include psychosocial issues in their treatment planning more overtly, just as sites whose primary focus is psychosocial need to become more overt about addressing clients' biological needs. A collaborative approach between academic and fieldwork educators would be necessary to provide training and support for affecting these changes. The fieldwork reconceptualization offered by Opacich is intriguing.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)