Polityka standardów. Konstruowanie pola obiektywności w diagnostyce psychiatrycznej na przykładzie DSM-III

The Policy of Standards. Constructing an Objective Field in Psychiatric Diagnostics on the Example of DSM-III

The article follows the evolution of diagnostic categories in psychiatry in subsequent editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), focusing on the third edition. The changes are determined by two processes: medicalization (the increase in the number of categories and expanding the scope of their application) and standardization (paradigm shift from psychoanalytic to positivist and pharmacological). From the constructivist perspective the Changes in the DSM are interesting for several reasons. They show a number of conditions such as economic interests, legal issues or social factors that take an active part in creating the diagnostic categories. The evolution of diagnostic can be seen in the descriptions of mental illness not as an expression of the progressive development of medical science, but as a transition from one paradigm of practicing psychiatry to another. Institutionalizing the new ways of describing mental illness has been done with the following elements and practices: the existence of a research collective (the individualisation of certain research domain), administering the research problems, transferring the research problems into the area of expert knowledge and make it inaccessible to laymen, rearticulating existing interests, highlighting anomalies in the old paradigm.

REFERENCES:

• Abriszewski K., Poznanie, zbiorowość, polityka. Analiza Teorii Aktora-Sieci, Kraków 2008.
• American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1st edition), Washington 1952.
• Bayer R., Spitzer R.L., Neurosis, Psychodynamics, and DSM-III. A History of the Controversy, „Archive of General Psychiatry” 1985, No. 42.
• Bińczyk E., (Post)konstruktywizm na temat technonauki, „Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa” 2010, nr 2.
• Bowker G.C., Star S.L., How Things (Actor-Net)work: Classification, Magic and the Ubiquity of Standards, http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~gbowker/actnet.html [dostęp: 14.05.2012].
• Callon M., Latour B., Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and how Sociologists Help Them to Do So [w:] Advances in Social Theory and Methodology. Toward an Integration of Micro – and Macro-Sociologies, K. Knorr-Cetina, A.V. Cicourel (red.), London 1981.
• Cohen J., A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales, „Educational and Psychological Measurement” 1960, No. 20.
• Collins H., Pinch T., Golem, czyli co trzeba wiedzieć o nauce, Warszawa 1998.
• Conrad P., The Medicalization of Society, Baltimore 2007.
• Decker H.S., How Kraepelinian Was Kraepelin? How Kraepelinian Are the neo-Kraepelinians? – From Emil Kraepelin to DSM-III, „History of Psychiatry”, No. 3, Vol. 18.
• Fleck L., Powstanie i rozwój faktu naukowego: wprowadzenie do nauki o stylu myślowym i kolektywie myślowym, Lublin 1986.
• Grob G.N., Origins of DSM-I: A Study in Appearance and Reality, „American Journal of Psychiatry” 1991, No. 148.
• Kirk S.A., Kutchins H., Making Us Crazy. DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders, New York 1997.
• Kirk S.A., Kutchins H., The Selling of DSM, New Burnswick–London 1992.
• Klerman G.L., The Evolution of a Scientific Nosology [w:] Schizophrenia: Science and Practice, J.C. Shershow (red.), Cambridge 1978.
• Kryteria diagnostyczne według DSM-IV-TR, J. Wciórka (red.), Warszawa 2008.
• Kuhn T., Struktura rewolucji naukowych, Warszawa 2009.
• Lakoff A., Pharmaceutical Reason. Knowledge and Value in Global Psychiatry, Cambridge 2005.
• Latour B., Dajcie mi laboratorium a poruszę świat, „Teksty Drugie” 2009, nr 1/2.
• Latour B., Pandora’s Hope, Cambridge 1999.
• Latour B., Science in Action, Cambridge 1987.
• Latour B., Splatając na nowo to, co społeczne, Kraków 2010.
• Latour B., The Pasteurization of France, Cambridge 1988.
• Mayes R., Horvitz A.V., DSM-III and the Revolution in Classification of Mental Illness, „Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences” 2005, No. 3, Vol. 41.
• Schondelmeyer S.W., Thomas III J., Trends in Retail Prescription Expenditures, „Health Affairs” 1990, No. 3, Vol. 3.
• Spitzer R.L., Cohen J., Fleiss J., Endicott J., Quantification of Agreement in Psychiatric Diagnosis, „Archives of General Psychiatry” 1967, No. 17.
• Wróblewski M., Choroba jako hybryda. ADHD w świetle teorii aktora-sieci, „Studia Socjologiczne” 2011, nr 4.
• Zybertowicz A., Przemoc i poznanie, Toruń 1995.
• citizen.org/documents/Pharma_Report.pdf [dostęp: 14.05.2012].
• http://www.pocieszka.pl/index.php?page=dsm&menu=szkolenia&item=szkolinst [dostęp: 14.05.2012].
• http://historypsychiatry.com/2010/04/ 27/a-moment-of-crisis-in-the-history-of-americanpsychiatry/ [dostęp: 26.06.2012]
•