title: Empirical lessons about occupational categorization from case studies of unemployment.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Scrutiny regarding the typological categorization of occupation (e.g., occupation as work, rest, or leisure) has prompted interest in experiential categories as a less exclusionary alternative. Empirical research can extend the dialogue about categorization by demonstrating how people in particular situations apply and generate occupational categories.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This article explores how adults without work utilized typological and experiential categorizations when discussing their occupations.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data were generated via a secondary analysis of interview transcripts from three ethnographic case studies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Study consultants gravitated toward experiential rather than typological categorizations, emphasizing the social, chosen, purposeful, and temporal qualities of their occupational engagement.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Occupational therapy practitioners and researchers must explicitly state how and why they categorize occupations with clients and research participants. Whereas typological categories can be used to initiate discussions about occupation, open questions paired with consultant-generated experiential categories may better capture occupational engagement and reveal potential injustices in situations like unemployment
authors.forename: Rebecca M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Aldrich
authors.forename: Caroline Harkins
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: McCarty
authors.forename: Brian A
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Boyd
authors.forename: Caitlin E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Bunch
authors.forename: Cathrine B
authors.initials: CB
authors.lastname: Balentine
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007398:Interpersonal Relations; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D036301:Qualitative Research; D014478:Unemployment; D014937:Work / Q000145:classification* / Q000523:psychology