The Sciences: Points, lines, angles and perspectives on Domains

In Hodges' model the axes are presented - by convention - as perpendicular. From this it follows that the resulting four domains, or quadrants appear as equivalent in terms of the space they each occupy. There are many posts on the blog that present a 2x2 table. When in template form Hodges' model is also a potential corpus, empty apart from its structure, then there must surely be a gross asymmetry in the SCIENCES domain compared with the others, including the SPIRITUAL. Discuss?

#simplicity #complexity #folktheory #humanities #arts #humanistic #emotion #balance

See also: 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.

You say Hodges' model is a map. What's the scale?

"That's another thing we've learned from your Nation," said Mein Herr, "map-making. But we've carried it much further than you. What do you consider the largest map that would be really useful?"

"About six inches to the mile."

""Only six inches!"exclaimed Mein Herr. "We very soon got to six yards to the mile. Then we tried a hundred yards to the mile. And then came the grandest idea of all! We actually made a map of the country, on the scale of a mile to the mile!"

"Have you used it much?" I enquired.

"It has never been spread out, yet," said Mein Herr: "the farmers objected: they said it would cover the whole country, and shut out the sunlight! So we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well."

        Lewis Carroll - The Complete Illustrated Works. Gramercy Books, New York (1982). Page 727.

My source
Text: https://people.duke.edu/~ng46/topics/lewis-carroll.htm

Plus a letter in FTWeekend: by Prof. R.T. Harrison. 'Country as its own map served as well' https://www.ft.com/content/2ad8ea16-d27d-11e1-abe7-00144feabdc0 1 Sept. 2012.

Hodges' model? Ah! You mean the naïve conceptual framework that ...

... thinks it's a theory! (i)

Yes, I suppose it is naïve, now you mention it. It's naïve in a number of ways:

1. The assumed state of students - new learners; although of course, in healthcare and other professions for many years mature students - far from naïve - can make up a notable proportion;
2. When a patient assessment begins, especially upon initial (and first) referral, the data gathering, our knowledge should then be assumed to be naïve.
3. The quest for a theoretical underpinning of Hodges' model, may display naïve associations between concepts that are misplaced, misunderstood and wholly inappropriate.

Worth noting in #1, that policy-makers and recruitment specialist hope to increase the number of mature entrants, given demographic pressures.

If you consider the way nursing as a profession has received 'nursing theory', or in a similar vein, consider the status of nursing theory, and models of care in nurse (and healthcare) curricula today, then the approach is pragmatically naïve? From the 1970's -

Vinner, S. (1976). The Naive Concept of Definition in Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(4), 413–429. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3481947

Vinner writes:

"As a matter of fact, all of us start to deal with definitions at a very young age when we start to leam our mother tongue. At this stage, various types of definition occur and the subject is too complicated to be dealt with here. After several years, especially at school, one type of definition becomes dominant; the lexical definition. In a lexical definition, the meaning of a certain word (or words) is explained by means of other words (we shall deal here only with the case in which the word and its definition are at the same language). This type of definition generally occurs in mono-lingual dictionaries." p.425.

"The sentence: 'A rectangle is a quadrangle that has four right angles' does not have in it any underlying assumptions about the role of definition in mathematics. It can be interpreted in any of the following three ways:

1. We (math teachers and math students) hereby agree that instead of saying, "a quadrangle that has four right angles" we will say: "a rectangle" (The formalistic approach).
2. In the mathematical community the meaning of the word rectangle is a quadrangle that has four right angles (The lexical approach from the expert's point of view).
3. The object denoted by the word 'rectangle' is a quadrangle that has four right angles (The lexical approach from the naive standpoint). 

Thus, not adding anything to definitions like the above we let the student choose his own interpretation out of the three mentioned (or even possibly more) interpretations. We claim that in most cases the student's choice will be the third one." pp.427-428.

Does the diaeresis here point to forms of parity of esteem, oppositions, polarities, dichotomy?

Designing for Changing Values (Event & Journal CfP)

I learned of the following research project via

Philos-L "The Liverpool List" Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool
[ https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/ @PhilosL ]

- with news of a call for papers:

CFP: Corpus Analysis, Conceptual Change, and Socially Disruptive Technologies

Hodges' model is ideally to suited to critique of systems and socio-technical dimensions as previously described:

Jones, P. (2009) Socio-Technical Structures, the Scope of Informatics and Hodges’ model, IN, Staudinger, R., Ostermann, H., Bettina Staudinger, B. (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Nursing Informatics and Socio-Technical Structures, Idea Group Publishing, Inc. Chap. 11, pp. 160-174.

Plus, there are many posts tagged 'socio-technical' - hyphenated to emphasize the inter- multi- trans-disciplinary bridges that the model provides (some posts are also tagged 'sociotechnical').

The research project Designing for Changing Values provides encouragement here for the increasing relevance of Hodges' model:

How to Deal with Value Change in Sociotechnical System Design

"Not value neutral

A key insight from philosophy of technology is that technological artifacts and sociotechnical systems are not value neutral, but support or inhibit certain values. Several philosophical accounts for understanding the embedding of values in technological artifacts have been proposed and approaches like Value Sensitive Design, Design for Values and Responsible Innovation have been established for integrating values into technical design.

A theoretical blind spot

A blind spot is, however, the possibility of value change after a sociotechnical system has been designed. For example, when many of our current energy and transportation systems were designed sustainability was not yet a central value, and we are now struggling to incorporate this value into these systems. Progress in the field is currently inhibited by the lack of a philosophical theory of value change in sociotechnical systems.

Better design strategies

This project fills the gap by developing such a theory. It moves beyond the state of the art by proposing a dynamic rather than a static account of values, by developing insights in the dynamics of value change, by extending analysis about the embedding of values in technical artefacts to sociotechnical systems and by developing design strategies that aim at designing sociotechnical systems that can better deal with value change."

https://www.valuechange.eu/

I do wonder about the subjective-objective and qualitative-quantitative 'metrics' of value and values (and other metrics - change, complexity, emergence). In human and mechanistic terms there are marked differences too between value and values. Values are, should, must be, embedded in individual nurses and hence the domains of Hodges' model. This is how (in part) the model supports reflection, and critical thinking.

No surprise then being created for practice, Hodges' model is dynamic. The model can help capture and present an ongoing sequence of frames. Where were we? Where are we going? How have things changed? (This is

Hodges' model prompted the thought of 'holistic bandwidth', the call for papers on corpus analysis seeks examples of formal work. The model, initially blank provides a conceptual framework upon which to capture a conceptually situated corpus. The structure of Hodges' model is a foundation for a relational ontology that draws upon semantic distance between the model's two axes (as per the table below):

INDIVIDUAL <-> GROUP 

HUMANISTIC <-> MECHANISTIC

Not just that but the synonyms that may apply. So for 'individual': person, patient, client, self, client, 'I', 'me', Peter, Chi, student, teacher and whatever role is applicable. This point is vital as there is a potential and workflow that runs from:

1. Neutral, blank, non-judgemental (the model as a template): the content - empty, null state.

2. The model's essential structure.

With a potential for conceptual explosion - from a basic (very simplistic) inherent corpus, to one that is explicit:

3. A response to a situation, a context.

4. That then changes according to events, aims, objectives, strategies, philosophical perspective (recovery, strengths, self-care), policy emphasis ...

In health and social care as suggested above we would hope that the model is employed to shift from the general to the specific - person-centred approach.

 INDIVIDUAL
|

 INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

value(S)	VALUE(S)
value(s)	VALUE(S)

This conceptual framework is not limited to strategy either, but can also encompass deliberation on operational and tactical concerns.


See also:

Soc. Philosophy & Technology Conf: Charleston, S.C. 8-11 July 2007

20/20 vision minus 1, 2, or 4 blind spots....

'corpus'

Jones, P. (2012). Exploring several dimensions of local, global and glocal using the generic conceptual framework Hodges's model. The Journal Of Community Informatics. 8(3). Retrieved from https://openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/JoCI/article/view/3034

Jones P. Exploring the relationship of threshold concepts and Hodges’ model of care from the individual to populations and global health. Rev Cuid. 2017; 8(3): 1697-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.15649/cuidarte.v8i3.464

c/o BBC R4: The Listening Project

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

humanistic --------------------------------------- mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group

The Listening...	Project

BBC Radio 4: The Listening Project