Severe Brain Injury and Boundary Work

  • Anette Lykke HindhedeEmail author


Based on the concept of boundary work, this chapter focuses on how survivors of severe traumatic brain injury construe themselves and the rest of society, and how enacting boundaries is especially important for these individuals’ constitution of self. The qualitative study features in-depth interviews with working-age people from across Denmark five years post injury. The data suggest two diverse age-related constructions of boundary work. The older respondents reinforced collective norms of the typical brain-injured individual, thus manifesting strong symbolic boundaries at the levels of both individual and collective identity. However, the younger respondents, who had more at stake, sought to challenge the predominant stereotypes of being unable to work and thus transform their collective identity. The chapter concludes that boundary work for survivors of severe traumatic brain injury is a continuous process even many years after their accident; these individuals must negotiate the official categories into which they are placed, along with the types of discourse that sustain them, despite being relatively well rehabilitated.


  1. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Danish Health Authority. (2011). Hjerneskaderehabilitering – en medicinsk teknologivurdering [Brain injury rehabilitation – A health technology assessment]. Accessed 26 Jan 2019.
  3. Das-Gupta, R., & Turner-Stokes, L. (2002). Traumatic brain injury. Disability & Rehabilitation, 24(13), 654–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 440–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Epstein, C. F. (1992). Tinkerbells and pinups: The construction and reconstruction of gender boundaries at work. In M. Lamont & M. Fournier (Eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality (pp. 232–256). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  8. Hindhede, A. L., & Aagaard-Hansen, J. (2017). Using social network analysis as a method to assess and strengthen participation in health promotion programs in vulnerable areas. Health Promotion Practice, 18(2), 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  10. Juengst, S. B., Adams, L. M., Bogner, J. A., Arenth, P. M., O’Neil-Pirozzi, T. M., Dreer, L., et al. (2015). Trajectories of life satisfaction after traumatic brain injury: Influence of life roles, age, cognitive disability, and depressive symptoms. Rehabilitation Psychology, 60(4), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and American upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lamont, M., & Fournier, M. (Eds.). (1992). Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lefebvre, H., Cloutier, G., & Levert, M. J. (2008). Perspectives of survivors of traumatic brain injury and their caregivers on long- term social integration. Brain Injury, 22(7–8), 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mauss, M. (1929/1969). Les civilisations. Éléments et formes. Exposé présenté à la Première Semaine Internationale de Synthèse, Civilisation. Le mot et l’idée, La Renaissance du livre (pp. 81–106). Paris, 1930. Texte reproduit in Marcel Mauss, Oeuvres. 2. Représentations collectives et diversité des civilisations (pp. 456–479). Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1969.Google Scholar
  17. Odgaard, L., Johnsen, S. P., Stubbs, P. W., Pedersen, A. R., & Nielsen, J. F. (2017). Alternative measures reveal different but low estimates of labour market attachment after severe traumatic brain injury: A nationwide cohort study. Brain Injury, 31(10), 1298–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Odgaard, L., Pedersen, A. R., Poulsen, I., Johnsen, S. P., & Nielsen, J. F. (2018). Return to work predictors after traumatic brain injury in a welfare state. Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, 137(1), 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scott, J. (2017). Social network analysis. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Velzen, J. M., van Bennekom, C. A. M., Edelaar, M. J. A., Sluiter, J. K., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2009). How many people return to work after acquired brain injury? A systematic review. Brain Injury, 23(6), 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Warde, A. (2008). Dimensions of a social theory of taste. Journal of Cultural Economy, 1(3), 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weber, M. (1991). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Routledge. (Original English-language translation published 1946).Google Scholar
  24. Zerubavel, E. (1993). The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning and PhilosophyAalborg University CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations