Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.667981
Title: The psychiatric diagnosis debate : a discursive analysis of the public comments made following online news articles about the debate
Author: Sweeney, Philippa
ISNI:       0000 0004 5364 4942
Awarding Body: University of East London
Current Institution: University of East London
Date of Award: 2015
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
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.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (D.Clin.Psy.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.667981  DOI: Not available
Share: