Book: Knowledge and Action (open access)

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

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

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group

KNOWLEDGE	ACTION

Knowledge and Action

There are of course many types of knowledge. There must be if our muscles can also be said to have a 'memory'. Here I am referring to the cognitive phenomena of an individual's possession of knowledge and how this is elicited, assessed and expressed clinically, educationally and in our day-to-day experiencesl. Clearly knowledge is, or should be translated into practice with evidence in the actions that follow.

This new, open access book on "Knowledge and Action" is a valuable and timely arrival. Timely as chapter 12 - Semantic Knowledge, Domains of Meaning and Conceptual Spaces is by Prof. Peter Gärdenfors. It is already a year since the last Conceptual Spaces Workshop in Sweden.

There are also two chapters related to healthcare.

Part of the utility of Hodges' model lies in how it can encompass knowledge (in all its forms), action AND space, the latter is also a key focus of the text. In addition I often added the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity to posts. The quote below from the book which I am citing at length to retain the meaning is also interesting as it could apply to Hodges' model as a whole. Hodges' model is multicontextual and situated. In addition:

We might also say that healthcare is invariably intersubjective; into which the evidence-based ethos would have us inject the largest dose possible of objectivity through scientific and/or political means(?).

Please see the specific chapter for the references in what follows:

Current theories of practice constitute an effort to reformulate the Aristotelian conception of phronesis, which implies that practice is seen as the basis and purpose of theoretical knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2001). That conception also implies an escape from the dualism of the subjective and objective (Bernstein, 1971; Stern, 2003, p. 185). Schatzki is seen as one of the leading thinkers in this approach, and he bases his practice theory on a new societal social ontology in which the dualism of ontological individualism and holism is overcome (Schatzki, 2006). He calls his new ontology site ontology, defining site as a type of context in which human coexistence takes place and which also includes the social entities themselves. Social events can thus be understood only through an analysis of this site. The close relationship between this concept of site and the geographic concept of place^# (Tuan, 2001) is evident:  

    Practice theory places practices at the center of the socio-human sciences instead of traditional structures, systems, events, actions. None of the practices can be reduced to a sum of its elements, which are of a complex character: they are mental and material, factual and relational, human and material, individual and supra-individual, etc. This conception also overcomes the dualism action/structure, … Each practice then operates in a typical regime, according to particular scenarios, it has its inherent normativity, etc. (Višňovský, 2009, p.391).

As an open access text this is valuable source, which I will revisit again soon.

Huib Ernste (2017) Rationality and Discursive Articulation in Place-Making. Chapter 3. In Knowledge and Action. editors: Peter Meusburger, Benno Werlen, Laura Suarsana. Vol 9. Online: Springer (Open) International Publishing.

^# I have wondered about this combination of cognition and geography -
https://hodges-model.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/cogneography
There is existing work on 'psychogeography' post to follow.

My source for this book with thanks: Library | Lancaster University

A Checklist for Personhood

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

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

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group

"Philosophers disagree on exactly what it would 
take for an animal to qualify as a person. 
Kristin Andrews at York University in Toronto, Canada, 
suggests searching for the six attributes listed here." p.17

SUBJECTIVITY (REASONING) -------------- PERSONALITY NARRATIVE SELF AUTONOMY	(OBJECTIVITY) --------------- RATIONALITY
RELATIONSHIPS

HI Peter,

Oh, that's interesting! I'd move Rationality to objectivity/science, though, as it refers to the ability to engage in logical reasoning, solve problems, etc. There's been a lot of interest recently on the logical abilities of babies (Sue Carey's team) and chimpanzees (e.g. Josep Call's team) and they both seem to be able to engage in exclusion reasoning (i.e. disjunctive syllogism).  I discuss animal rationality in my book The Animal Mind. 

Rationality isn't consciousness; I could add consciousness to the list, but it's there already, just subsumed by narrative self and relationships too.

cheers,

Kristin

___________________________________________________________
Kristin Andrews
Associate Professor
Philosophy/Cognitive Science
York University
4700 Keele St.
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
CANADA

www.yorku.ca/andrewsk

Rutkin, A. (2016). Almost human? New Scientist, 2 July. 231:3080. 16-17.

Additional link:
BBC Future: 'Wisdom of the crowd'; The Myths and Realities

Myers-Briggs 'in' Hodges' model (Discuss?)

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

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

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group - population

INTUITION THINKING   INTROVERSION JUDGING

While thinking and thought span the intra- interpersonal and sciences domains, the bias is towards objectivity not subjectivity.

While individual's exercise judgement and the outcome of many decisions may be inconsequential, when situations are misjudged, the consequences can be very political, i.e. professional and legal. The overlaps here are many (as per the function of the MBTI) - in judgements that are adverse socially, for example, shame and embarrassment may also result.

Intuition is usually experienced in a person's 'gut' and yet despite this somatic reference it is a very subjective and humanistic quality. In clinical contexts it is interesting when a colleague or a team try to make sense of this in terms of action to take.

This interplay between subjectivity-objectivity, personal-other, quality-quantity and other dichotomies are inherent in Hodges' model.

My source:
Ahuja, A. (2018) The eternal appeal of Jung (Review of: What's Your Type? The Strange History of Myers-Briggs and the Birth of Personality Testing, Merve Emre, William Collins. Life&Arts, FTWeekend, 15-16 September. p.9.

ii Comparison and Contrasting the Meikirch Model and Hodges' model

Meikirch Model

Quite some time has passed since June 1st and part 1. I don't think this post can wait 18 years like that preceding! It is good to see '(Biologically given) potential' emphasized in the Meikirch Model; and the arrows which refer to:

'Whenever the five components and the ten complex interactions (double arrows) cooperate in a purposeful way, health may result. More specifically, a person is healthy, if by the two potentials she or he is in a position to respond satisfactorily to the demands of life.'

The interactions are explained in more detail. Mental health (illness) is there in 'personally acquired potential', but I wonder if it needs to be more explicit? Although, is this a welcome 'break' from the mind-BODY Cartesian divide and its legacy? A shift that enables a more constructive (less stigmatizing) formulation?

Given the climate crisis and experience of COVID, we can hopefully retain a sense of our individual proximity to the environment and green spaces. The importance of access to 'green spaces' seems to be sustained, even if action on air quality (and plastics in the environment) is still playing catch up with WHO air quality recommendations. The interdependence of nations and geography crystallizes more each month. The need for international cooperation apparent in cities, such as Lahore (1). Pollution and smog in Pakistan depends on what happens in India. Water flows, the how, when and whether is noted as a potential trigger for future conflicts.

Both models, the Meikirch, and Hodges' are of course idealizations. As such there are inevitable limitations, assumptions, pros and cons. Like many concepts, environment is a compound or expansive term. Simultaneously, from a primary meaning, we can proceed from the physical environment, to the social, political and the mental environment that these invoke or foster. 

In the SCIENCES domain of Hodges' model we are in 'a' - the environment. Physical reality presents itself in raw and fundamental terms. Across the world climate change is threatening many homes and places a stress the importance of 'shelter' and the homeless. Natural disasters, and acute local weather events which are now repetitive disrupt life and population. Conflicts continue to displace people, climate refugees will follow: (https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics). Contrast this with the ideals of housing design that is sustainable and also enables occupants and communities to feel the environment. 

'Ecosystem' is being applied in ways beyond its original articulation. This past N. summer-autumn reading and reviewing -

Capra and Luisi's (2014) The Systems View of Life - A Unifying Vision.

(i) https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/2024/09/i-systems-view-life.html

- there was much emphasis on complexity, ecosystems, emergence, education, and obviously systems.

In their model, Bircher and Hahn incorporate Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS).

https://meikirch-modell.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Health-and-diease-as-CAS.pdf

This is helpful as the ecosystem is transformed, before our eyes. Clearly, there isn't one ecosystem, but several and they are all dynami: even if, outdoor clothing and car manufacturers want us to believe that we can create our own private ecosystem that is trans-portable. Systems are like the whirls in moving water, they come and go. Ironically there are now more opportunities to study them - if we so choose. Now weather events reveal the risks of people trying to sustain these mindsets when a local catastrophe strikes. The website for the Meikirch Model includes the table below. 

Theories Concerning
Health and Disease

Type of thinking	Epistemology	Means for comprehension
Prescientific	Personal experience	Intuition
Scientific: Meikirch-Model	Scientific argumentation	Rational mind

This is constructive as models should encompass what can be presented as 'knowledge' and from there: data, information, facts, myth, wisdom and folk theory. Intuition is listed as a prescientific 'means for comprehension'. Intuition is highly subjective, in contrast to the (supposed) objectivity of the sciences. Intuition is nonetheless significant in mental health care - psychotherapy, and in truth more generally (interpersonal skills); even if it remains 'unscientific' and an enigmatic phenomena. 

On twi/X and here on W2tQ, I've suggested that the bio-medical, and the biopsychosocial models are inadequate as conceptualisations for healthcare and education. We need to fully encompass the subjective and humanistic dimensions of health care and lived experience, giving more attention, if not credence to 'personal experience'. In England and Wales these past months and to follow our parliament has been debating assisted dying for people with terminal illness. Both sides acknowledge the sorry state of palliative care. Policy and ethics - hence the politics of health needs to be explicit in a model of/for healthcare.

Working in mental health you quickly understand how critical it is being able to relate to others, and  develop therapeutic relationships. Get this wrong, and problems may follow. If interpersonal - communication are essential to a health professional's knowledge then awareness and competence in relational skills are also key. In the past two years or so, I've realised the importance of this for Hodges' model and trying to develop a theory to underpin Hodges' model. I believe that this is a strength of Hodges' model. So we need to extend the table above. 

Individual
   |

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

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

 SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

Group

choice - life style reasoning - rationality my literacy - responsibility mental illness - fear of stigma intuition / subjectivity	geography - environment air pollution - smog & plastics traffic regulation - metrics Planetary health 'truth' objectivity
community - relationships culture social systems family social (all) determinants	international cooperation transparency / accountability policies - funding determinants of health reporting - citizen science

As part 1 started, I will finish with the title of the paper that prompted these reflections:

Bircher J. und Hahn E. G., (2017). Will the Meikirch Model, a New Framework for Health, Induce a Paradigm Shift in Healthcare? Cureus 9(3): e1081. DOI 10.7759/cureus.1081 

The Meikrich model is not alone in seeking to facilitate and deliver a paradigm shift in healthcare; and, at individual, collective, planetary levels, across social care and education and the disciplines - old and new.

 

(1) https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/pakistan-lahore-air-pollution-schools-shut-aqi-b2640783.html

i Comparison and contrasting the Meikirch Model and Hodges' model

'Intellectual brutalisation' and the saving grace and power of poetry

BBC Radio 4 Today: An eminent cardiologist has organised and funded a poetry competition for his medical students to stop them becoming, in his words, intellectually brutalised.
Gabrielle Gascoigne, pictured, is a previous winner.
The BBC’s Jane Dreaper discovers more.

[no longer available] Listen to ‘Poetry competition for 'intellectually brutalised' medics’ on Audioboo

PBS: For these medical students, poetry nurtures the soul

Here's (source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s6mdp/live ) the full version of Mastectomy - For His Wife, by Gabrielle Ruth Gascoigne:

It will be an honour
to bathe the scars.
Don’t think my tears imply
an ounce of sorrow -
only joy
could fill my eyes.

It will be a pleasure
to hold you close.
Know this – your precious flesh
calls the bluff on gold
and silver -
makes me a king.

It will be a delight
to talk with you
into the night we thought
stolen, clean away -
until day
renews our hope.

It would be too heartless
if all this love,
these sinner’s prayers and more
should fall to nothing
more than rain
on empty streets.

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES
humanistic ------------------------------------------- mechanistic
SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

individual

subjectivity insight, rapport, empathy emotional control, detachment, engagement risk of burnout	objectivity anatomy, physiology          physicality, processes, mechanistic intellectual brutalisation
humanistic communication, relationships (medic) poetry	funding, crowded curricula hidden curriculum

group - population

Symposium on challenging the notion of evidence: bringing rights into research

Dear Colleagues,

Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters (SRHM) is organising a symposium in New Delhi, India and online on enhancing the ecosystem of rights and evidence in sexual and reproductive health.

SRHM Journal

The symposium will create space for dialogue on:

- Deconstructing the notion and hierarchy of evidence
- Pushing methodological boundaries in SRHR research
- Questioning what constitutes “evidence-based”, a "researcher", and what is “scientifically appropriate”
- Questioning the power in research

This event is part of SRHM's global and South Asia hub initiative on rights-based knowledge creation.

Date: Friday May 6, 2022

Time: 10:30-1:00pm GMT - 4:00-6:30pm New Delhi

Register to attend in person in New Delhi: https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/challenging-the-notion-of-evidence-bringing-rights-into-research-tickets-324001506227

Register to attend online: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_nB3Qxr-1Rs2e0blPb_J0JA

Please feel free to share with your network. We hope to see you at the event!

Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters
www.srhm.org | www.srhmjournal.org
Twitter: @SRHMJournal | FB: @SRHMJournal

 

INDIVIDUAL

|

 INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

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

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

Mental Health Sexual and Reproductive Health Education - [Health] Literacy Questions: what constitutes “evidence-based”, a "researcher", and what is “scientifically appropriate”? Methodology SUBJECTIVITY - QUALITATIVE	Physical Health [Literacy] Sexual and Reproductive Health Hierarchy of Evidence Methods ... the Power in Research OBJECTIVITY - QUANTITATIVE
Society, Culture, Ethnographic Sexual and Reproductive Health	Human Rights Sexual and Reproductive Health

My source: HIFA

Power equation image: 

https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/word-energy-and-power/power/power-formula/

Black Mental Health Manifesto

"Concrete action is needed to improve mental healthcare for black communities otherwise generations will keep being “held back from achieving their full potential”, a new coalition has warned.

The group said it is calling for “positive change” to alter a system within which it said black people are being failed when they at their most vulnerable.

The coalition – which includes the Black Minds Matter charity, the Centre for Mental Health and Mind as well as smaller grass-roots organisations – has launched what it called the Black Mental Health Manifesto."

        continued ...

Individual

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

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

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

Group

Mental Health / Illness - Parity of Esteem Holistic: Assessment, Planning, Intervention, Evaluation - Competency? Diagnosis of Psychoses	Physical health change/revision - WHEN? Objectivity of assessment / Cultural literacy
Black communities and Families Culture, History Radical future? Stigma, Stereotype Social determinants	Racism. Economic, Political determinants Poverty, Housing insecurity Statistics - Admissions / Recourse to MHA Incarceration, Injustice Mental Health Law - Mental Health Act CHANGE/REVISION - when? Coalition

SHAME AND MEDICINE PROJECT: 2022

‘PHENOMENOLOGY AND SHAME EXPERIENCES’

SPECIAL PANEL BSP ANNUAL UK CONFERENCE 2022

Call For Papers for special panel for the 2022 British Society for Phenomenology Annual Conference

Location: University of Exeter, UK, in-person and virtual (hybrid)

Date: Tuesday 30 August – Thursday 1 September 2022

CFP deadline: Thursday 31 March 2022 (midnight UK).

The “Phenomenology and Shame Experiences” Call for Papers invites abstracts to be considered for a special panel for the 2022 British Society for Phenomenology Annual Conference on the theme of Engaged Phenomenology II.

This panel is sponsored by the Shame and Medicine Project and the aim of the panel is to encourage an engaged phenomenological approach to considering shame in its various forms, and how it relates to and effects features of lived experience such as embodiment, affective life, consciousness, sociality, intersubjectivity, intercorporeality, health, among others.

Check out the full CfP for ‘Phenomenology and Shame Experiences’.

https://shameandmedicine.org/call-for-papers-phenomenology-and-shame-experiences/

 

Individual
|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

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

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

Group

COGNITION lived experience emotions mental health interpersonal skills self-conscious shame self-stigma subjectivity	physical health dis-ability place - privacy medicine health care HEALTH STATUS objectivity
STIGMA SHAME SOCIAL COGNITION communication meanings dignity and respect	health status [REAL?] power health professionals (whose parity of esteem, autonomy, control?) 'Cost' to health systems?

 

My source:

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

@PhilosL @LiverpoolPhilos

 

Book: Landscapes of Investigation [open access]

"Creating landscapes of investigation is a primary concern of critical mathematics education. It enables us to organise educational processes so that students and teachers are able to get involved in explorations guided by dialogical interactions. It attempts to address explicit or implicit forms of social injustice by means of mathematics, and also to promote a critical conception of mathematics, challenging the assumption that the subject represents objectivity and neutrality. Landscapes of Investigation provides many illustrations of how this can be done in primary, secondary, and university education. It also illustrates how exploring landscapes of investigation can contribute to mathematics teacher education programmes. 

This edited volume is the result of a collaboration established through the Colloquium in Research in Critical Mathematics Education, which took place in 2016, 2018, and 2019 in Brazil. Its twenty-eight contributors are young researchers from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, India, Mexico and the USA, who are dedicated to the further development of critical mathematics education. 

Organised in eighteen chapters, the volume presents examples of engaging students from a diversity of social and economic backgrounds, age ranges, and abilities across different countries. The chapters present original findings on the social aspects of all levels of mathematics education. Landscapes of Investigation is of particular relevance to those with an interest in the potential of mathematics education to challenge social injustices."

Penteado, M. & Skovsmose, O., editor. (2022) Landscapes of Investigation: Contributions to Critical Mathematics Education. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. [Pdf] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/2021385926/

Review:

David M. Bowers
"Book Review: Landscapes of Investigation: Contributions to Critical Mathematics Education (2022) (M. G. Penteado & O. Skovsmose, Eds.)". Journal for Theoretical & Marginal Mathematics Education, vol. 2, no. 1, 2023. doi:10.5281/zenodo.10440243

My source:

https://x.com/dylanwiliam/status/1602776823225540610?s=20

Previously

https://hodges-model.blogspot.com/search?q=mathemacy

Are you planning a health* study in 2025?

New Year - new project perhaps?

*nursing, mental health, theory, practice, management, workforce, medicine, allied health professions, social work, psychology, labs, diagnosis, palliative, end of life, diseases, public health, public MENTAL health, -isms, prevention, protection, education, learning disability, parity in care, informatics, information, literacIES, AI, arts, policy, leadership, migration, history, future, women, children, men, LGBTQ+, ethics, rights, health economics, social care, systems, services, climate change, refugees, conflict, law, leadership, resources, commerce, fraud, self-care, UN, WHO, UNESCO, regional, national, global, or planetary ..., ...

Is there a 'space' for Hodges' model in your study?

IF NOT, IMHO YOUR STUDY MAY BE INCOMPLETE!

Is this statement ...?

INDIVIDUAL

|

   INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES              

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

 SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL   

|

GROUP

utter nonsense and arrogance a psychological threat^ it's either a great joke, or a grand delusion look - get real, we can't cover all the bases calling attention to the high-degree of subjectivism in academia and health research no, actually it is blatant evidence of bias and a lack of objectivity! Who is Hodges? shamefully egotistical our project does not need to consider: reflection - reflective practice critical thinking holistic - integrated care: parity of esteem person-centredness the curricula (however 'expressed') methods - methodology - philosophy a sign we've found the true 'meta-' tool (Yes, this is interesting!)

to the Nth degree! a physical threat^ a fact - when critiqued using Hodges' model limited apprehension of 'HEALTH'.. sheer ignorance proof of an incomplete (grey) literature search proof that 'not invented here' prevails identification of relations and relationships is catered for, as are ... safety, situational awareness, scoping, mapping, evaluation, analysis, synthesis, diagrams - graphical approaches, project mangement potentially supporting inter- multi- transdisciplinarity a sign that ('fashion') science, evidence have moved on: get over it!

a soul in search of a community of practice? demonstrating much effort is falling on deaf ears? time to listen, with all that's going in the world Hodges, did you say? Sorry not here!

not commissioned/funded by a 'us'.  what? No Doctorate? Go away: please! who does that person think they are!    fao project/research management group/committee?

Brian E. Hodges (1942-2022) RIP

"Hi! I'm new to Hodges' model - and this blog - what's it about?"

^No threat is implied, on the contrary frustration ... If Hodges' model may be of use, please do get in touch. Thanks to all for your visits and best wishes with your respective projects, studies and careers.

[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.