Two one-day events in September: BCS SPECIALIST GROUP ON AI

BCS SPECIALIST GROUP ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (BCS-SGAI)

 

There are two one-day SGAI events arranged for September, both at the British Computer Society London office (near Moorgate underground station).

 

Trustworthiness and Safety in Generative AI - Friday September 11th 2026

https://www.bcs-sgai.org/genai2026/

 

Real AI 2026 - Friday September 25th 2026

https://www.bcs-sgai.org/realai2026/

 

There are online registration forms available from the event websites.

 

Trustworthiness and Safety in Generative AI - Friday September 11th 2026

Despite impressive breakthroughs in capabilities across text, vision, audio, and multimodal reasoning, current generative models remain prone to unpredictable failures and exhibit unresolved challenges in alignment, grounding, and robustness techniques, including hallucinations, instability under distribution shift, hidden internal representations, and limited theoretical understanding of how large‑scale models encode and propagate knowledge. This colloquium aims to create a forum for discussing cutting edge advances and emerging challenges in the trustworthiness and safety of generative AI.

 

The talks will include:

• Beyond the Pixel: Trustworthy and Safe Generative AI for Medical Image Quality Transfer
• Spoofing Deep Leakage Attacks in Federated Learning
• Can We Trust the Voice on the Line? Robust Audio Deepfake Detection from Real-World Calls to the First “Hi”
• The Scenic Route to Deception: Dark Patterns and Explainability Pitfalls in Conversational Navigation
• Differential Adjusted Parity for Learning Fair Representations
• Decision-theoretic uncertainty quantification in generative deep learning
• Zero Trust Architectures for Secure Multi-Agent AI Systems: From Identity to Collaboration Integrity

Registration fee: £50 (plus VAT) for BCS and SGAI members and £90 (plus VAT) for others. This includes attendance at the event, lunch and refreshments.

Students and unwaged: £35 (plus VAT).  Group discounts are also available.

 

Real AI 2026 - Friday September 25th 2026

This event is aimed less at deep AI specialists and more at those who may be interested in understanding what AI can offer, and what it is doing right now. The event will feature talks from leading exponents and case studies outlining practical applications of AI from a wide range of application domains. Plenty of time has been allowed in the programme for discussion.

 

The talks will include:

• Evolving the SDLC: Our Journey Towards Agentic Software Engineering
• Robotics in the Age of AI: Adoption, Illusion and Direction of Travel
• Is Judgement Uniquely Human?
• Agent Trust and Coordination in Autonomous Multi-Agent Cyber Defence Systems
• Agentic AI: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly – Three Real-World Use Cases

Registration fee: £90 (plus VAT) for BCS and SGAI members and £110 (plus VAT) for others. This includes attendance at the event, lunch and refreshments.

Students and unwaged: £50 (plus VAT).  Group discounts are also available.

 

Max Bramer, Chair, BCS-SGAI 

bcs-sgai.org

[And my source.]

Invitation to Register: AI for Health BCS London - 6 Nov 2026

Invitation to Register

AI for Health 2026
Friday 6 November 2026

British Computer Society London Office (near Moorgate Underground)

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) prioritising AI for health is crucial. The WHO also highlights that a healthy diet protects you against many chronic noncommunicable diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Quantum computing is gathering an enormous interest as a new paradigm of computing  (see Quantum for Good at https://quantumforgood.eu/), which is already making an impact across industries like health and life sciences (agriculture, food and health). Classical (or current) AI relies in classical computers based on binary bits (zeros and ones), while quantum AI relies in quantum computers based on quantum bits (qubits). Quantum AI could dramatically accelerate research that requires processing vast amounts of data, contributing to human health by accelerating drug discovery or enabling earlier diagnostics. Quantum AI could be also instrumental in identifying early signs of crop diseases or optimising water use.

AI for Health 2026 will have a morning session about AI for health, and an afternoon session about quantum technologies for health and food, including an introduction to quantum computing. Before lunch break, there will be a hands-on tutorial on low-code AI agents for health, farming, and food. Come along to AI for Health 2026 if you are interested in cutting-edge AI for Health, using latest technologies with a promise of high impact.

A full-day face-to-face event organised by the BCS SGAI with the following agenda:

09.30-10.00 Tea/coffee Welcome
10.00-10.45 Medical diagnosis after LLMs (keynote talk) by Prof Brendan Delaney (Imperial College London)
10.45-11.30 AI in Mental Healthcare by Mr Anirban Lahiri (Arndit Ltd. and Kainos Ltd., UK)
11.30-11.45 Tea/coffee Break
11.45-12.30 Demystifying AI regulation by Dr Marinos Ioannides (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, UK)
12.30-13.15 Hand-on tutorial: Low-Code AI Agents for Health, Farming, and Food
13.15-14.15 Lunch Break
14.15-15.00 Introduction to Quantum Computing and its Relevance for Biomedical Science by Dr Oliver Thomson Brown (University of Edinburgh)
15.00-15.45 Translating Quantum Food Futures by Dr Saihong Li (University of Stirling)
15.45-16.30 Emerging Opportunities for Quantum Technologies in Food and Health by Dr Aleksey Kozikov (Newcastle University)
16.30-16.45 Close

Further details at https://www.bcs-sgai.org/health2026/

There will be Certificates of Attendance for those who register and attend the event.

Registration on Eventbrite (includes refreshment and lunch!)
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ai-for-health-2026-tickets-1990787464898

My source: Dr. Mercedes Arguello Casteleiro (BCS SGAI)

CfA Fully Funded Research Sabbaticals - via BCS-SGAI

Time, focus and community for your research on the societal impact of digital transformation

 

A fellowship at the Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) provides the freedom to dedicate yourself to your research and the opportunity to join a vibrant interdisciplinary community. Step away from daily work routines to gain new perspectives and build lasting connections.

 

As a fellow, you can spend either six or three months in Bochum, Germany. During this time, we will cover your sabbatical leave from work through financial compensation (e.g. for a teaching substitute) or provide grants of up to 2.000 € per month. In addition, we will provide a fully furnished apartment free of charge. You can invite guests for collaboration and receive financial support for research expenses. Private offices and meeting rooms with modern facilities offer optimal working conditions.

 

The funding program is open to excellent scholars and practitioners, to all career stages, disciplines and areas of investigation, as well as to pure research and to projects that are more applied in orientation.

 

You can apply for our regular open call, or for our special call “Futures of Work”.

 

The next deadline for applications is 31 August 2026. The earliest possible starting date for new fellowships is October 2027. Please use the application form on our website.

 

Find out more: https://cais-research.de/en/cais-college/fellowships/

 

Further questions? Please contact esther.laufer AT cais-research.de

 

My source: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A0=AI-SGES

Leapspace? Why not ...?

Referred to a paper in an email: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112401.

- I noticed an invitation to try Leapspace. 

So I leapt (with much editing - for formatting here). ...

 

Copilot steps

Creating a plan to respond to your query

Performing search for foundational documents
Performing keyword search
Using data from Scopus
("Hodges' model" OR "Hodges model" OR "Hodges' health career model" OR "health career model" OR "care domains model") AND (nursing OR healthcare OR "health care" OR education) AND (domain* OR component* OR framework OR concept* OR definition*)

Performing natural language search
Using data from Scopus
What are the conceptual definitions, domains, and components of Hodges' model in nursing and healthcare education?

Performing keyword search
Using data from Full text
("Hodges' model" OR "Hodges model" OR "care domains") AND (diagram* OR figure* OR visual* OR schema) AND (teach* OR education OR curriculum OR learning) AND (critique OR adaptation* OR application*) AND (method* OR framework OR discussion)

Performing natural language search
Using data from Full text
How is Hodges' model represented, taught, and adapted in nursing or healthcare education, including diagrams and critiques?

Performing keyword search
Using data from Scopus
("Hodges' model" OR "Hodges model" OR "care domains framework") AND (application* OR use OR implementation OR practice) AND (critique* OR limitation* OR adaptation* OR evaluation*) AND (nursing OR healthcare OR "health care")

Performing natural language search
Using data from Scopus
What applications and critiques of Hodges' care domains framework have been reported in nursing and healthcare practice?

Done

Generated by LeapSpace, Thu Jul 09 2026

Hodges' health career - care domains - model

Hodges’ Health Career – Care Domains – Model is a generic, practice-based conceptual framework for health and social care that organizes thinking into four knowledge/care domains: science, political, sociology, and interpersonal. It is presented as broadly applicable across healthcare contexts and is used to structure reflection, critical thinking, and care planning. [1] [2] [3]

Core domains

Domain	What it covers	How it is used
Science	Cause and effect, evidence, costs, benefits, and trade-offs	Helps frame the “hard” evidence side of care and service decisions. [1]
Political	Policy, systems, and structural influences on care	Helps connect care to wider health and social policy contexts. [1] [4]
Sociology	Social context, culture, stigma, and relationships	Helps explain how social factors shape health and illness experiences. [1] [5]
Interpersonal	Therapeutic relationships, patient/carer engagement, and human interaction	Supports person-centred and relational practice. [1] [2] [6]

What the model is for

• It is described as universal in structure and adaptable to many healthcare settings, including informatics, dementia/palliative care, forensic mental health, and oral health. [2] [3] [4] [7] [8]

• It helps practitioners map concepts into domains, build a mind-map-like structure, and support reflective practice and critical thinking. [3] [9]

• In forensic mental health nursing, it is proposed as a way to guide assessment, decision-making, and recovery-oriented practice. [2]

Bottom line

Hodges’ model is best understood as a four-domain lens for integrating clinical evidence, policy, social context, and relationships into one framework for care and reflection. Its main value is not in prescribing a single care process, but in helping users think more holistically and systematically about health problems and care systems. [1] [2] [3]

Confidence level: High — multiple sources consistently describe the model’s four domains, generic structure, and broad healthcare applications.

References

1. Fox, Siobhán, FitzGerald, Carol, Harrison Dening, Karen, (...), Timmons, Suzanne (2017) Better palliative care for people with a dementia: summary of interdisciplinary workshop highlighting current gaps and recommendations for future research. BMC Palliative Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-017-0221-0

2. Doyle, M., Jones, P. (2013) Hodges' Health Career Model and its role and potential application in forensic mental health nursing. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01961.x

3. Jones, P., Wirnitzer, K. (2022) Hodges' model: The Sustainable Development Goals and public health - Universal health coverage demands a universal framework. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000254

4. Bettiol, S., Jones, P., Onyedikachi, H.A., Kernohan, W.G. (2026) Bridging Gaps in Oral Health Frameworks: Mapping With Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.70034

5. Jones, P. (2008) Exploring serres' atlas, Hodges' knowledge domains and the fusion of informatics and cultural horizons. Social Information Technology: Connecting Society and Cultural Issues. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-774-4.ch007

6. Merritt, M.K., Procter, N. (2010) Conceptualising the functional role of mental health consultation-liaison nurse in multi-morbidity, using Peplau's nursing theory. Contemporary Nurse. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2010.34.2.158

7. Jones, P. (2009) Socio-technical structures, 4Ps and hodges' model. Nursing and Clinical Informatics: Socio-Technical Approaches. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-234-3.ch011

8. Jones, P. (2011) Socio-technical structures, 4Ps and hodges' model. Clinical Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-561-2.ch215

9. Jones, P. (2025) A Generic Model and Conceptual Framework to Prime Curiosity Across Health and Social Care Disciplines to Facilitate Lifelong Learning. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70252

Follow-up Suggestions 

What are the key components of Hodges' health career care domains model?

How does Hodges' model apply to interdisciplinary health care practices?

What are the implications of Hodges' health career care domains model for patient-centered care?

LAST CALL 2nd AIxIA Summer School on Artificial Intelligence for Healthcare!

[apologies for multiple postings]

A few last spots are still available for the school, taking place in Trento, Italy, on 13-17 July 2026.

The school is open to anyone interested in AI for Healthcare: Master and PhD students, researchers, clinicians, physicians, data scientists, AI engineers, and professionals working at the intersection of AI and healthcare.

Master and PhD students benefit from a reduced fee: 470 EUR.
The regular fee is 495 EUR.

This year’s edition will focus on:

• Medical Imaging
• Smart Hospitals
• Patient Trajectories

- with attention to concrete healthcare problems and to different AI research perspectives, including generative AI and neuro-symbolic AI.

More information:
https://lnkd.in/dEBmQ8Rr

Registration:
https://lnkd.in/dggvaMSP

Please share with anyone who may be interested!

#AI #DigitalHealth #Healthcare #ArtificialIntelligence #GenerativeAI #NeuroSymbolicAI #MedicalImaging #SmartHospitals #PatientTrajectories #AIxIA

My source: francesco.calimeri, unical.it

ii Thoughts re. Ecosia's AI Chat 'answer'

The previous post has been updated, to the prompt is added:

 'Please provide sources and references.

[If you are new here, and too Hodges' model please see the bibliography in the sidebar.] 

A 'human' reading (still) makes me wonder if the 'answer' is what I want to hear (as a user)? Is it worrying that the first provides a 'Conclusion' the latest does not. The table is helpful as I believe that Hodges' model has a role across research (and political!) -isms through methodologies and methods. The model can also encompass ('eat'!) aspects of scale, or level.

The reply still gives me quadraphonic joy (if read out-loud). Not only are the domains recognised, but the LLM/agent ai takes the intrapersonal / interpersonal in its stride (from the blog?). Subjects related to each of the domains are given in brackets. 

There is of course a bias (several) in the prompt, as the care domains were never intended to be comparable. It is positive that each domain is seen as having its own specific scope and function. Over twenty years notes were started on a paper on Hodges' model and its role/function in helping to define 'scope of practice'. Significantly, in the UK the rise of associate positions across disciplines has provoked much debate, vitriol (on X and union and lobbying) and soul searching in certain professional groups. Given the increasing importance of the global health and social care workforce this trend is reflected globally. A situation set to be extended with uncertainties and tensions exacerbated by artificial intelligence in practice.

Before 'explaining' the asymmetries (in points 1-4) it seems the domains are complementary (for all their differences), and provide a holistic underpinning for the model as a whole (my reading).

1. Scope and Focus 

Interesting, how the science and sociology domains are described as broad. Perhaps I am underestimating the depth/density of sociology, after all folk theory is found there? Unfortunately, we can also add a myriad of conspiracy theories? Sociology can also lay claim to quite a few constructions of its own. Including aesthetics as a bridge to architecture and design(?).

On 'X', Hodges' model has been described negatively as inviting / fostering generalism. So, this is a bad thing? Is it not strange then that your Advanced Nurse Practitioner, Consultant doctors (all specialities) and students cross-curricula can all use Hodges' model? The fact that my own responses were never engaged has helped train my thought. Here the relevance of the model to students and continued professional development is made through generalizable knowledge.

The response to the political domain is supportive, acknowledging resource allocation and the distinction between individual and collective (see for example):

S. Bettiol, P. Jones, H. A. Onyedikachi, and W. G. Kernohan, (2026) Bridging Gaps in Oral Health Frameworks: Mapping With Hodges' Health Career - Care Domains - Model, Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.70034.  

I've seen tweets today regards IQ reductions in younger people. This is one reason for support of the top-left mental domain being designated as 'Intrapersonal – Interpersonal'. Our interpersonal skills and awareness are surely dependent upon our achieving a given level of inner mental life? Encouraging to see how subjectivity and objectivity is assigned too. Although, I think I'm in an echo chamber!

2. Epistemological Differences

In arguing for a model of health and social care that goes beyond:

• medical model;
• bio-medical model;
• bio-psycho-social model.

Reading 1-2 from the perspective of the Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain you see how limiting this is, if an individual in a mental health/illness/mental capacity context can only point to sciences and sociological domains. Indeed, they may be relying guardians and advocates as they are unable to does this and raise the political matter of their rights. Without the POLITICAL domain (or as a result of it - neglect, structural racism) there is no law enshrining independent advocacy...

3. Practical Application in Care

To care is to act. Think about triage and emergency response.

Now in the 21st century 'care' must include self-care, health and social care, and (delayed or not you decide?) planetary care.

This necessitates a change of mindset at an individual and collective level. Consider the literacies that (again) young people must master to be effective, productive and happy citizens tomorrow?

So the following is a gift (in my eyes): 

"This means the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain is not just another 'content area' but a lens through which all other domains are experienced and integrated."

4. Hierarchy of Integration

'While the domains are conceptually equal in Hodges’ model' ..

This is interesting in itself.

[There does seem a emphasis upon the Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain in this answer?]

This is quite a step, as the idea of a nexus and integration are picked up; and pointing to what are the determinants of health:

'For example:

• A scientific understanding of depression (e.g., serotonin levels) must be interpreted through the intrapersonal experience of the individual.
• A sociological analysis of healthcare disparities must be understood through the political structures that enable or inhibit change.
• A political decision about resource allocation must be filtered through intrapersonal values and priorities.'

I'm pleased I did this, as long as I'm not being trapped in an epistemological cocoon: otherwise known as a circle. Apart from a few occasions, I have not used AI/LLMs, perhaps it is time to explore more? I'd like to preserve my naivety, especially were maths is concerned. I'm not sure of what baggage I may pick up and lack the knowledge to interpret?

Previous post:  https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2026/06/h2cm-domains-symmetry.html

[Updated] AI Chat: Are the domains of Hodges' model comparable?

In drafting a future post: 'The Sciences: points, lines, angles and perspectives on domains', I thought I would ask Ecosia's AI Chat a related question, here is the (quick) prompt and reply:

PROMPT: 
In Hodges' model there are four care, or knowledge domains. The four domains are the sciences, sociology, political, and intrapersonal – interpersonal domain. In terms of potential content are these domains comparable, or is there an essential asymmetry? Please provide sources and references.

(I have saved the prompt for future reference and refinement.)

RESPONSE: [updated 21st June 2026]

Hodges’ model (also known as the Health Career Model or h2cm) is a conceptual framework that organizes knowledge and care into four quadrants, each representing a distinct domain of human experience and knowledge. These domains are:

1. Sciences (empirical, biological, and physical sciences)
2. Sociology (social structures, relationships, and community)
3. Political (power, policy, governance, and resource allocation)
4. Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (psychological, emotional, and relational aspects of the self and others)

Are the Four Domains Comparable or Asymmetrical?

The four domains in Hodges’ model are not strictly symmetrical in terms of their content, scope, or application. While they are presented as equal in structure (each occupying one quadrant of the model), their potential content, theoretical foundations, and practical implications can vary significantly. Here’s why:

1. Differences in Scope and Focus

• Sciences (Quadrant 1):
  This quadrant focuses on empirical, measurable, and biological aspects of health and care, such as anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology. Its content is often highly specialized, technical, and evidence-based, rooted in natural sciences like biology and chemistry.

  • Example: The role of hormones in stress response or the pathophysiology of diabetes.

• Sociology (Quadrant 2):
  This quadrant addresses social structures, culture, and community dynamics. Its content is broader and more interpretive, drawing from sociology, anthropology, and social psychology.

  • Example: The impact of socioeconomic status on health outcomes or the role of family support in recovery.

• Political (Quadrant 3):
  This quadrant examines power, policy, governance, and resource distribution. Its content is highly contextual and often contested, influenced by political science, economics, and public policy.

  • Example: The effect of healthcare policies on access to services or the role of advocacy in shaping health priorities.

• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (Quadrant 4):
  This quadrant focuses on individual psychology, emotions, and relationships. Its content is highly subjective and variable, drawing from psychology, psychotherapy, and ethics.

  • Example: A patient’s personal beliefs about illness or the dynamics of a therapeutic relationship.

2. Differences in Methodology

• Sciences and Political domains often rely on quantitative methods (e.g., experiments, statistical analysis, policy evaluations).
• Sociology and Intrapersonal domains frequently use qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, case studies, ethnography).
• This methodological diversity can create asymmetry in how knowledge is generated, validated, and applied.

3. Differences in Practical Application

• Sciences and Political domains  are often system-level and influence macro-level decisions (e.g., clinical guidelines, healthcare policies).
• Sociology and Intrapersonal domains are more individual- or community-level, focusing on personalized care, cultural competence, and therapeutic relationships.
• This can lead to asymmetry in impact, where some domains (e.g., Political) shape broad systems, while others (e.g., Intrapersonal) focus on direct human experience.

4. Theoretical Foundations

• The Sciences and Political domains are grounded in positivist and structuralist theories, emphasizing objectivity and external reality.
• The Sociology and Intrapersonal domains are influenced by interpretivist and constructivist theories, emphasizing subjectivity and lived experience.
• This theoretical diversity can create asymmetry in how knowledge is perceived and valued in different contexts.

Is There an Essential Asymmetry?

Yes, there is an essential asymmetry in the potential content of the four domains. While the model presents them as equal in structure, their content, methods, applications, and theoretical foundations are not interchangeable. The domains complement each other but serve different purposes in understanding and delivering care.

Sources and References

1. Conceptual Overview of Hodges’ Model:

   • Hodges’ Model: A Cognitive Periplus for - WikiEducator (PDF)
   • Hodges’ Model: Welcome to the QUAD
   • Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality

2. Theoretical Foundations:

   • Hodges’ Health Career Model and its role and potential application
   • Hodges’ model: the Sustainable Development Goals and public health

3. Discussions on Asymmetry and Complementarity:

   • The model’s holistic intent is emphasized in Hodges’ Health Care Model as a Framework for Quality, but its quadrants are not identical in content or application.
   • The differences in methodology and scope are discussed in Hodges’ Health Career Model and its role and potential application.

Summary Table: Asymmetry in Hodges’ Model Domains

Domain	Content Focus	Methodology	Theoretical Foundation	Level of Application
Sciences	Biological, empirical data	Quantitative	Positivist	Macro (systems, clinical)
Sociology	Social structures, community	Qualitative/Quantitative	Interpretivist, Structuralist	Meso (groups, communities)
Political	Power, policy, governance	Quantitative/Qualitative	Structuralist, Critical Theory	Macro (systems, policy)
Intrapersonal-Interpersonal	Psychology, emotions, relationships	Qualitative	Constructivist, Humanistic	Micro (individual, relational)

PROMPT: 
In Hodges' model there are four care, or knowledge domains. The four domains are the sciences, sociology, political, and intrapersonal – interpersonal domain. In terms of potential content are these domains comparable, or is there an essential asymmetry?

 

In Hodges’ model, the four care (or knowledge) domains are:

1. Sciences (biological, physiological)
2. Sociology (social, cultural, environmental)
3. Political (legal, policy, organizational)
4. Intrapersonal – Interpersonal (psychological, emotional, relational)

These domains are not strictly comparable in terms of content, scope, or function. Instead, they represent complementary perspectives that together form a holistic framework for understanding human health, well-being, and care. Here’s why there is an essential asymmetry between them:

1. Scope and Focus

• Sciences and Sociology are broad, well-established academic disciplines with extensive theoretical and empirical foundations. They provide generalizable knowledge about biological processes and social systems.
• Political is more narrowly focused on power structures, governance, and resource allocation. While critical for systemic change, it is less about individual experience and more about collective frameworks.
• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal is deeply personal and subjective, focusing on individual psychology, emotions, and relationships. It is less about universal laws and more about unique, context-dependent experiences.

This makes the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain inherently asymmetrical compared to the others, as it deals with subjectivity and variability rather than objective or structural phenomena.

2. Epistemological Differences

• Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains rely on external observation, measurement, and analysis. They are rooted in positivist or structuralist traditions, where knowledge is often generalized.
• Intrapersonal – Interpersonal is rooted in interpretivist and phenomenological traditions, where knowledge is co-created through subjective experience and dialogue. It resists universal generalization.

This creates a fundamental asymmetry in how knowledge is produced and validated across the domains.

3. Practical Application in Care

• The Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains provide frameworks for action (e.g., medical treatments, social policies, legal rights). They are instrumental in shaping systems and interventions.
• The Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain is transformative—it shapes how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to care. It is the domain where meaning is made and agency is exercised.

This means the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain is not just another “content area” but a lens through which all other domains are experienced and integrated.

4. Hierarchy of Integration

While the domains are conceptually equal in Hodges’ model, in practice, the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain often acts as the nexus where the other domains intersect. For example:

• A scientific understanding of depression (e.g., serotonin levels) must be interpreted through the intrapersonal experience of the individual.
• A sociological analysis of healthcare disparities must be understood through the political structures that enable or inhibit change.
• A political decision about resource allocation must be filtered through intrapersonal values and priorities.

This integrative role makes the intrapersonal-interpersonal domain asymmetrical in function, even if not in formal status.

Conclusion: Essential Asymmetry

The four domains are not comparable in content or function. Instead:

• The Sciences, Sociology, and Political domains provide structural and systemic knowledge.
• The Intrapersonal – Interpersonal domain provides subjective and relational knowledge, which is essential for meaning-making and agency.

The asymmetry arises from the epistemological and practical differences between objective/systemic knowledge and subjective/experiential knowledge. Hodges’ model emphasizes that all domains are necessary, but they operate in fundamentally different ways.