- learn about the conceptual framework Hodges' model. A tool that can help integrate HEALTH and SOCIAL CARE, INFORMATICS and EDUCATION. The model is situated, facilitates person-centredness, integrated - holistic care and reflective practice. A new site using Drupal is an ongoing aim - the creation of a reflective workbench. Email: h2cmng @ yahoo.co.uk Welcome

Monday, September 11, 2017

The Radical, Interpretative and Functionalist in Hodges' model

 SUBJECTIVE ------------------------------------ OBJECTIVE
humanistic --------------------------------------- mechanistic

This post (subject to further revision) is intended to highlight the similarities of the above structural and conceptual basis for Hodges' model and a table and figure in Keith Tudor's book from 1996 'Mental Health Promotion' from which I drew a post earlier in the year:

Inner model II: Hodges' model - helping to locate Social Sciences...

In this post I'm returning to what are some pivotal figures in regard to the status of Hodges' model. Viewing this below you are invited to simultaneously superimpose Hodges' model.


'Radical humanist'

individual experience of health and autonomy in making healthy choices
'Radical structuralist'

materialist view of natural and social world

actors involved in the social process


regulated behaviour - 
and regulating healthy behaviour (pp.46-49)


In the book Figure 1.4 is  reproduced above with the 'subjective' and 'objective' to the left and right respectively. I have placed these within the axes of Hodges' model topmost. I appreciate you do need the text (especially table 1.3 and the many references provided) to understand Tudor's purposes in defining mental health. The book is well worth locating - despite its age. I must admit I already have three books in the box for the next trip to Hay. This one though is a keeper. Whilst in Hodges' model the vertical axis is:
(dyad) group (population)

this is not challenged by the dual sociological form above and in the book. Health and social care are predicated on the individual in the first instance. Change lies with the individual. We are all social beings, socialised entities.

Keith Tudor writes (p.33):
Drawing on the notion of paradigm, developed by Kuhn (1970), and putting these two dimensions, the subjective-objective and the regulation-radical change, together as axes, Burrell and Morgan (1979) define four distinct sociological paradigms (figure 1.4).  
... First, although each paradigm will contain a variety of viewpoints there will be, nevertheless, a 'commonality of perspectives', an essential unity within the paradigm, defined and described by the differences between the paradigms. Secondly, 'all social theorists can be located within the context of these four paradigms according to the meta-theoretical assumptions reflected in their work' (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p.24). The paradigms thus provide a useful map with which to explore conflicting theories and practices. Thirdly, the four paradigms are mutually exclusive: a synthesis is not possible' (Ibid., p.25).
I am still digesting this. Even to wondering that a synthesis may be possible, even if fudged through a series of overlays?

This occasional paper by Tudor may be also help:
Mental Health and Health Promotion

My source: Table 1.3 A scheme for analysing assumptions about the nature of society in relation to mental health. Figure 1.4 Four paradigms for the analysis of social theory (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p.22) & In Tudor, K. (1996). Mental Health Promotion, Paradigms and practice, Part 1 Defining the field; Chapters 1-2. London: Routledge, pp.32-33.