In the second of two articles, the author examines the development of occupational therapy and the problems confronting members of a profession which is seeking autonomy within a complex State system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MacDonaldEM, Occupational therapy in rehabilitation. London: Baillière Tindall and Cox, 1972.
2.
American Occupational Therapy Association. Standards and Ethics Commission. Constitution. Rockvile, MD: AOTA, 1955.
3.
AlthusserL.For Marx. London: Allen Lane, 1969.
4.
BAOT. Occupational Therapists Reference Book. Norwich: Parke Sutton, 1983–4, 1986.
5.
HopkinsHLSmithHD, Willard and Spackman's occupational therapy. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1978.
6.
HumeCALockSJ, The Golden Jubilee 1932–1982. Br J Occup Ther1982; 45(5): 151–53.
7.
IllichI.Medical nemesis. London: Caldar and Boyars, 1975.
8.
MacDonaldEM, Worldwide conquests of disabilities. London: Baillière Tindall and Cox, 1981.
9.
ReedKL, Models of practice in occupational therapy. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1984.
10.
ScheinEA, Professional education: Some new directions. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.
11.
StewartAM, The study of occupational therapy teaching resources in the United Kingdom. London: Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine, 1979.
12.
WallisMA, The development of an in-service diploma course in occupational therapy. Br J Occup Ther1984; 47(2): 32–34.
