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
orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-8965
