Rehabilitation – Ideas in ALL

Social Structures

Authors: Kate Rochford, 3^rd Year Undergraduate Intern, Department of Psychology, Maynooth University & Mac MacLachlan, Co-Director of the Assisting Living and Learning (ALL) Institute, Maynooth University and Clinical Lead for Disability Services, Irish Health Service (HSE).

This figure illustrates the concept of disciplinary capture whereby one way of thinking (represented by one single text here) determines how people think about an issue. Like a whirlwind, it can often powerfully funnel thinking, ignoring the range of ideas available within the group, which otherwise may provide useful alternatives or additions to proposed actions. Image by Kate Rochford

Introduction
An interdisciplinary approach to research has become increasingly popular when dealing with different topics (Aboelela et al., 2007). Such an approach can offer a more comprehensive or holistic perspective and is most suited to addressing real-world complex issues (Repko et al., 2017). However, while interdisciplinary collaboration may be appealing in theory, it is often difficult in practice (Cummings and Kiesler, 2007). In that regard, we believe that the concept of ‘disciplinary capture’ can supplement an enhanced interdisciplinary approach. It can also help to transpose academic thinking into practice. Particularly, in relation to disability, and services for persons with disabilities, this concept can translate into more effective integration of services.

Disciplinary capture involves thinking about problems from only one perspective (Brister, 2016). Disciplinary capture can determine what sort of ideas, facts, interventions or causal explanations, are depicted as permissible. For instance, a disease-model approach to mental health may only accept pharmaceutical interventions as being legitimate for a range of mental health problems, while a more psychological, social or human rights approach may not accept this (MacLachlan et al, 2021). In this scenario, if proponents of the disease model are positioned in such a way that other professions are expected to be deferential towards them, then this is likely to inhibit truly interdisciplinary practice. Moreover, this can impede the empirical merit of such a position through the preclusion of an open discussion which would allow for full exploration of all the possible alternatives. The result may manifest in poorer decision-making processes and sub-optimal interventions.

Share this: