Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:39:33.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Participatory Interactive Objectivity in Psychiatry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2022

Şerife Tekin Open the ORCID record for Şerife Tekin [Opens in a new window]
Şerife Tekin*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at San Antonio
*
Email: serife.tekin@utsa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper challenges the exclusion of patients from epistemic practices in psychiatry by examining the creation and revision processes of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a document produced by the American Psychiatric Association that identifies the properties of mental disorders and thereby guides research, diagnosis, treatment, and various administrative tasks. It argues there are epistemic—rather than exclusively social/political—reasons for including patients in the DSM revision process. Individuals with mental disorders are indispensable resources to enhance psychiatric epistemology, especially in the context of the crisis, controversy, and uncertainty surrounding mental health research and treatment.

Information

Type
Symposia Paper
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 89 , Issue 5 , December 2022 , pp. 1166 - 1175
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. 1980. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Mental Disorders, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. 1968. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. 1952. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Mental Disorders, 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Bueter, Anke. 2021. “Public Epistemic Trustworthiness and the Integration of Patients in Psychiatric Classification.” Synthese 198 (suppl. 19):4711–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H.M., and Evans, Robert. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32 (2):235–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2004. “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity.” Synthese 138 (3):453–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, Elizabeth H., Davidson, Larry, and Strauss, John S.. 2010. “The Need for Patient-Subjective Data in the DSM and the ICD.” Psychiatry 73 (4):297–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagné-Julien, Anne-Marie. 2021. “Towards a Socially Constructed and Objective Concept of Mental Disorder.” Synthese 198 (10):9401–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinker, Robert. 2010. “In Retrospect: The Five Lives of the Psychiatry Manual.” Nature 468:168–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, In. 1995. “The Looping Effects of Human Kinds.” In Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate, edited by Sperber, D., Premack, D., and Premack, A. J., 351–94. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parnas, Jopseph, and Henriksen, M.G.. 2014. “Disordered Self in the Schizophrenia Spectrum: A Clinical and Research Perspective. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 22 (5):251–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regier, Daniel, Emily, A. Kuhl, A., Kupfer, David J., and McNulty, James P.. 2010. “Patient Involvement in the Development of DSM-V.” Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes 73 (4):308–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadler, John Z., and Fulford, Bill. 2004. “Should Patients and their Families Contribute to the DSM-5 Process?” Psychiatric Services 55 (2):133–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2015. Making Medical Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dan J., and Phillips, K.A.. 2013. “Patient Advocacy and DSM-5.” BMC Medicine 11:133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tabb, Katherine, and Schaffner, Kenneth F.. 2014. “Hempel as a Critic of Bridgman’s Operationalism: Lessons for Psychiatry from the History of Science.” In Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry III, edited by Kendler, Ken S. and Parnas, Joseph, 213–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tekin, Şerife. 2019. “The Missing Self in Scientific Psychiatry.” Synthese 196 (6):2197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tekin, Şerife, and Outram, Simon. 2018. “Overcoming Mental Disorder Stigma: A Short Analysis of Patient Memoirs.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24 (5):1114–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tekin, Şerife. 2016. “Are Mental Disorders Natural Kinds: A Plea for a New Approach to Intervention in Psychiatry.” Philosophy, Psychology and Psychiatry 23 (2):147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tekin, Şerife. 2014. “Self-insight in the Time of Mood Disorders: After the Diagnosis, Beyond the Treatment.” Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 21 (2):139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tekin, Şerife. 2011. “Self-Concept Through the Diagnostic Looking Glass: Narratives and Mental Disorder.” Philosophical Psychology 24 (3):357–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2015. “A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology.” In Objectivity in Science, edited by Tsou, Jonathan Y., Richardson, Alan, and Padovani, Flavia 189–210. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whyte, K. 2018. “What Do Indigenous Knowledges Do for Indigenous Peoples?” In Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning from Indigenous Practices for Environmental Sustainability, edited by Nelson, M. and Shilling, D., 57–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar