Cargando…
Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC)
In the United States, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is seeking to encourage researchers to move away from diagnostic tools like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM). A key mechanism for this is the “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) initiative, closely...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557003/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31327882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243919841693 |
_version_ | 1783425404258746368 |
---|---|
author | Pickersgill, Martyn |
author_facet | Pickersgill, Martyn |
author_sort | Pickersgill, Martyn |
collection | PubMed |
description | In the United States, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is seeking to encourage researchers to move away from diagnostic tools like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM). A key mechanism for this is the “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) initiative, closely associated with former NIMH Director Thomas Insel. This article examines how key figures in US (and UK) psychiatry construct the purpose, nature, and implications of the ambiguous RDoC project; that is, how its novelty is constituted through discourse. In this paper, I explore and analyze these actors’ accounts of what is new, important, or (un)desirable about RDoC, demonstrating how they are constituted through institutional context and personal affects. In my interviews with mental health opinion leaders, RDoC is presented as overly reliant on neurobiological epistemologies, distant from clinical imaginaries and imperatives, and introduced in a top-down manner inconsistent with the professional norms of scientific research. Ultimately, the article aims to add empirical depth to current understandings about the epistemological and ontological politics of contemporary (US) psychiatry and to contribute to science and technology studies (STS) debates about “the new” in technoscience. Accordingly, I use discussions about RDoC as a case study in the sociology of novelty. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6557003 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65570032019-07-18 Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) Pickersgill, Martyn Sci Technol Human Values Articles In the United States, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is seeking to encourage researchers to move away from diagnostic tools like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM). A key mechanism for this is the “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) initiative, closely associated with former NIMH Director Thomas Insel. This article examines how key figures in US (and UK) psychiatry construct the purpose, nature, and implications of the ambiguous RDoC project; that is, how its novelty is constituted through discourse. In this paper, I explore and analyze these actors’ accounts of what is new, important, or (un)desirable about RDoC, demonstrating how they are constituted through institutional context and personal affects. In my interviews with mental health opinion leaders, RDoC is presented as overly reliant on neurobiological epistemologies, distant from clinical imaginaries and imperatives, and introduced in a top-down manner inconsistent with the professional norms of scientific research. Ultimately, the article aims to add empirical depth to current understandings about the epistemological and ontological politics of contemporary (US) psychiatry and to contribute to science and technology studies (STS) debates about “the new” in technoscience. Accordingly, I use discussions about RDoC as a case study in the sociology of novelty. SAGE Publications 2019-04-12 2019-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6557003/ /pubmed/31327882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243919841693 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Articles Pickersgill, Martyn Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) |
title | Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) |
title_full | Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) |
title_fullStr | Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) |
title_full_unstemmed | Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) |
title_short | Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health “Research Domain Criteria” (RDoC) |
title_sort | psychiatry and the sociology of novelty: negotiating the us national institute of mental health “research domain criteria” (rdoc) |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557003/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31327882 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243919841693 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pickersgillmartyn psychiatryandthesociologyofnoveltynegotiatingtheusnationalinstituteofmentalhealthresearchdomaincriteriardoc |