The practice of assigning numbers to variances in the actions, feelings, and beliefs of people and groups has a long history in Western civilization. It is increasingly necessary to use quantitative measurements to demonstrate the need for occupational therapy services, and it is also becoming more common to use quantitative measures to show the value of these services in terms of the results obtained. It has been common practice for occupational therapy to borrow methods and tools from other disciplines, such as psychology, medicine and educational science, in order to achieve these expectations. While these strategies are effective, the assumptions and styles of thinking about individuals that accompany them are not necessarily consistent with the ideals and practice of occupational therapy. When working in a profession that is holistic and humanistic in its perspective, there are inherent conflicts in the evaluation process that must be addressed. It is my contention that, in order for assessment to serve our goal of promoting health and participation through occupation, we must accept uncertainty and be vigilant about the biases in thinking that are inherent in our measures, and that we must accept the uncertainty and be vigilant about these biases in thinking.

Step-by-step explanation

When it comes to resource management, despite the promises of inclusivity promoted by integrative models, the content of choices rarely reflects the range of meanings and interpretations that the presence of various players implies. We examine the knowledge-production procedures now in use in natural resource management, namely water resource management, and argue that part of the problem lies in the way ambiguity is managed within these processes. From this perspective, we propose that coping with ambiguity necessitates a rethinking of the knowledge production processes that are employed, including the types of knowledge that are used, how and by whom it is created, what values are incorporated, and how values are weighted in order to be effective. In this paper, we address the erroneous assumptions that underpin operative knowledge generation processes, as well as the characteristics and limitations of knowledge production models that are better suited to deal with ambiguity through integrative practices and other approaches. The last section of the paper offers concrete suggestions for facilitating implementation of knowledge co-production procedures that might better realize integration based on deliberation, open space for conversation and negotiation, and learning.