Rehabilitation as a Curricular Construction

  • Per Koren SolvangEmail author
  • Marte Feiring


Rehabilitation is a contested interdisciplinary field, torn between medical dominance and psychosocial challenges. Since higher education is an important arena for epistemological work, this chapter elucidates the scholarly profile outlined in educational programmes within the area of rehabilitation. The authors conducted a text study of how programmes in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and Germany are presented. Three types of study programmes were identified: physiotherapy-based, interdisciplinary programmes, and educational counselling programmes. The diversity of programmes is discussed in light of Bourdieuan perspectives on field struggles in academic settings and the Mode 2 type of knowledge production at the intersection between clinical practice and academia.


  1. Albrecht, G. (2015). Rehabilitation. In R. Adams, B. Reiss, & D. Serlin (Eds.), Keywords for disability studies (pp. 148–151). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baumann, M., Schmitz, C., & Zieger, A. (Eds.). (2010). Rehapädagogik, Rehamedizin, Mensch: Einführung in den interdisziplinären Dialog humanwissenschaftlicher Theorie- und Praxisfelder. Hohengehren: Schneider.Google Scholar
  3. Bickenbach, J. E. (2012). Ethics, law and policy. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bickenbach, J. E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E. M., & Ustun, T. B. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science & Medicine, 48(9), 1173–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleiklie, I., & Kogan, M. (2007). Organization and governance of universities. Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, L. (2009). Philosophers of intellectual disability: A taxonomy. Metaphilosophy, 40(3–4), 552–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feiring, M. (2009). Sources of social reforms, 1870–1970: The rise of a Norwegian normalisation regime. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  10. Feiring, M. (2016). Fra revalidering til rehabilitering – en dansk begrepshistorie [From ‘revalidering’ to rehabilitation – A Danish conceptual history]. Tidsskrift for professionsstudier, 24, 86–97.Google Scholar
  11. Feiring, M., & Solvang, P. K. (2013). Rehabilitering – et grensefelt mellom medisin og samfunn [Rehabilitation – A boundary area between medicine and society]. Praktiske Grunde, 7(1–2), 73–84.Google Scholar
  12. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, B. E. (2016). Rehabilitation. A post-critical approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenhalgh, T., & Wieringa, S. (2011). Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammell, K. W. (2006). Perspectives on disability and rehabilitation: Contesting assumptions, challenging practice. New York: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Imrie, R. (2004). Demystifying disability: A review of the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 26(3), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McPherson, K., Gibson, B., & Leplège, A. (Eds.). (2015). Rethinking rehabilitation: Theory and practice. London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mik-Meyer, N. (2005). Dokumenter i en interaksjonistisk begrepsramme [Documents in an interactionist framework]. In M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), Kvalitative metoder i et interaksjonistisk perspektiv [Qualitative methods in an interactionist perspective] (pp. 193–214). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels.Google Scholar
  19. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  20. Reinhardt, J. D. (2011). ICF, theories, paradigms and scientific revolution. Re: Towards a unifying theory of rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43(3), 271–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reinhardt, J., Hofer, P., Arenz, S., & Stucki, G. (2007). Organizing human functioning and rehabilitation research into distinct scientific fields. Part III: Scientific journals. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39(4), 308–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Solvang, P. K. (2012). Et faglig kryssfelt [A scholarly cross-section]. In P. K. Solvang & Å. Slettebø (Eds.), Rehabilitering: individuelle prosesser, fagutvikling og samordning av tjenester [Rehabilitation: Individual processes, professional development and service coordination] (pp. 15–34). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  24. Solvang, P. K., Hanisch, H., & Reinhardt, J. D. (2017). The rehabilitation research matrix: Producing knowledge at micro, meso and macro levels. Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(19), 1983–1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stucki, G., & Celio, M. (2007). Developing human functioning and rehabilitation research. Part II: Interdisciplinary university centers and national and regional collaboration networks. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 39(4), 334–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stucki, G., Bickenbach, J., Gutenbrunner, C., & Melvin, J. (2018). Rehabilitation: The key health strategy of the 21st century. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 50(4), 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tøssebro, J. (2004). Introduction to the special issue: Understanding disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wade, D. (2015). Rehabilitation – A new approach. Overview and part one: The problems. Clinical Rehabilitation, 29(11), 1041–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whyte, J. (2005). Training and retention of rehabilitation researchers. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 84(12), 969–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Whyte, J. (2008). A grand unified theory of rehabilitation (we wish!): The 57th John Stanley Coulter memorial lecture. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89(2), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Accessed 26 Nov 2018.
  33. World Health Organization. (2017). Rehabilitation in health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysiotherapyOslo Metropolitan UniversityOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations