Adolf Meyer: An early occupational scientist?

Key words: historiography, historical origins of occupational science, and tenets of occupational science Intent: There is a resurgence of academic interest in Dr. Adolf Meyer (Lamb, 2014). The purpose of this paper is to pose a question for participants to consider: Was Adolf Meyer an early occupational scientist who has not been adequately vetted or recognized for being such? And, if this is true, why does it matter? Argument: In addition to the four conceptual foundations (psychobiology, habit order/disorder and harmony/disharmony, and participation with meaning) that Adolph Meyer provided to medicine, neuroscience, occupational therapy, psychiatric social work and psychiatric nursing in the first half of the 20th century, he also provided four sets of tools for scientific inquiry (scientific observation, the life chart or life history, case studies and lists/action protocols) (Royeen, 2017). Using only primary sources of approximately 60 papers (Meyer, 1982; Meyer & Lief, 1948) this paper presentation will delineate how each of these conceptual foundations relate to the field of occupational science that started to emerge in the latter part of the 20th century into the 21st century. Further, this presentation will analyze how each of the tools he described or innovated also relate to the current field of occupational science, and how they may be used to further occupational science research and scholarship. Importance to occupational science: Current emphases in occupational science reflect its origins in the latter part of the 20th century. Yet, many of the tenets of occupational science are not unique to modern times and these tenets may be matched to the original work of a major scholar of the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, Dr. Adolf Meyer. By delineating how aspects of his work presaged the emergence of occupational science, the historical foundations of occupational science may be traced much earlier than typically considered. This is important since it means the historical foundations of key aspects of occupational science are nearly hundred years ago. These historical foundations, currently underappreciated, lend academic rigor and validity to occupational science by further tracing key tenets to historical foundations beyond modern times. Conclusion: Upon presentation of the “evidence” (key quotes from primary sources and interpretative, historical analysis according to Salevouris & Furay (2015), conceptual foundations and scientific tools described in his writings, the session participants will be asked to judge whether or not Adolf Meyer was, in fact, an early occupational scientists heretofore unclaimed by the developing science. Questions to facilitate discussion importance to mission of SSO:USA: Compare the scientific tools Adolf Meyer used to develop knowledge to scientific methods employed in occupational science. Compare the conceptual foundations theorized by Adolf Meter to tenents of occupational science. Why would consideration of historical writings by Adolf Meyer be politically important for the field of occupational science? Why is the history of any science important? How can understanding the deep historical foundations of occupational science enhance its rigor and validity