The Psychiatric Diagnosis Debate: A Discursive Analysis of Public Comments Made Following Online News Articles about the Debate.

Prof Doc Thesis


Sweeney, Philippa 2015. The Psychiatric Diagnosis Debate: A Discursive Analysis of Public Comments Made Following Online News Articles about the Debate. Prof Doc Thesis University of East London Psychology
AuthorsSweeney, Philippa
TypeProf Doc Thesis
Abstract

In May 2013 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the fifth version of the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’ (DSM-5). The DSM aims to provide a classification system and list of diagnostic criteria for ‘psychiatric disorders’ used by healthcare systems around the world. To coincide with this, the UK’s Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP) released a position statement calling for a ‘paradigm shift’ away from psychiatric classification and conceptual systems based on a ‘disease model’ (DCP, 2013). This set the stage for the long-standing debate about psychiatric diagnosis and the dominance of the biomedical model to be played out in online news media, therefore opening up the debate to larger audiences in a context where readers were able to comment on the debate.
This study presents a Discursive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the online comments made by readers following one of the news articles. This analysis is used to map out and explore the range of arguments, constructions and positions in the responses to the article and the debate about psychiatric diagnosis and the biomedical model of mental distress. It also explores the broader discourses, assumptions, concepts, models and ideologies drawn upon in this talk. The study also presents an analysis of the news article and consideration of how the framing of the article relates to the responses observed in the comments section.
It is hoped that by examining the debate about psychiatric diagnosis and the biomedical model of distress this will further our understanding of the persuasive and powerful arguments that are available in support of these, how they are used and how they may contribute to the survival of psychiatric diagnosis despite well evidenced and articulated critiques, challenges and opposition.

Year2015
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)doi:10.15123/PUB.4540
Publication dates
PrintMay 2015
Publication process dates
Deposited21 Oct 2015
Publisher's version
License
CC BY-NC-ND
Permalink -

https://repository.uel.ac.uk/item/85641

  • 11
    total views
  • 11
    total downloads
  • 3
    views this month
  • 3
    downloads this month