Big pictures: Hodges’ model and Future Studies

I came across a 1996 paper by Richard Slaughter - The Knowledge Base Of Futures Studies As An Evolving Process. The paper highlighted a problem faced by future studies which was (and still may be?) grappling with its knowledge base:

Why, then, is it necessary to have a knowledge base of futures studies (KBFS)? There are several reasons. First, as Norwegian futurist Kjell Dahle pointed out at the World Futures Studies Federation conference in Barcelona in September 1991, the lack of a common knowledge base greatly complicated the work of those preparing courses, planning research, teaching and developing FS projects. The field is well known for its breadth, geographical scope and range of disciplinary paradigms. Where, in all this diversity, should newcomers, particularly intending students, begin? …

As also cited on the h2cm website Slaughter notes the significance of Wilber’s quadrants as a key resource and approach -

I have referred to this work at some length because over several years Wilber’s developing account has reframed my own thinking about present and future options, both personal and collective. Such a framework integrates insights from a wide field and provides FS with powerful new understandings and tools which go beyond one-dimensional thinking (e.g. rationality, technique, forecasting) and a single privileged culture (Western culture). Here, then, is an emerging basis for big-picture thinking and action into the new millennium and beyond. Here too is where some of the most substantial developments in the KBFS are likely to occur.
[My emphasis.]

Health and social care is not only focused on the future -

It is concerned about the PAST, NOW and FUTURE

- BUT it is always future oriented.

So future studies community look over here – now (please!)

Source: Slaughter, Richard A. (1996). The Knowledge Base Of Futures Studies As An Evolving Process, Futures, 28, 9, 799-812.

What Hodges' model is not - prescriptive

Even though models of nursing (health and social care?) are not exactly flavour of the month at present, if they were then Hodges' model could avoid getting involved in the interminable debates that often surrounds this or that model. As per a previous post therapies, models and computing languages can have much in common with legions of supporters - champions who may have a great deal invested professionally and personally.

Hodges' model is neutral in this respect: it is not prescriptive. It does not dictate the particular approach (problem-based, solution focused, person-centred, family partnership, psychosocial, developmental, educational, recovery, self-care, citizen-centred...), but obviously wherever Hodges' model is used the values expected of the professional must follow. Hodges' model provides a very high level, generic arena with potential applications across home, all clinical, social care and pastoral settings, other work places, communities, businesses, governments, high schools, colleges, prisons and for the more adventurous the space station and beyond. This may suggest that Hodges' model is in some way 'above' other models, looking down as they fight it out in their disciplinary enclosures below; but this is far from it. All the tools we use must to subjected to debate, research and critique.

So wherever you are physically and wherever the (care) situation leads you cognitively (within and between one or more care domains) Hodges' model can be utilised. This freedom, this diversity of application does not come free. Allied with our values using Hodges' model requires work and effort. We can obtain an appreciation of the task and the work involved when we consider Hodges' model in terms of user interface design and progressive disclosure - to follow.

Original image source: http://www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/bnf/current/images/diamorphine_prescription.gif