• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Science, Technology and Human Values >Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health 'Research Domain Criteria' (RDoC)
【24h】

Psychiatry and the Sociology of Novelty: Negotiating the US National Institute of Mental Health 'Research Domain Criteria' (RDoC)

机译：精神病学和新颖性社会学：与美国国家心理健康研究所的“研究领域标准”（RDoC）进行谈判

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

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.
机译：在美国，美国国家心理健康研究所（NIMH）寻求鼓励研究人员放弃诊断工具，例如《精神疾病诊断和统计手册》（DSM）。一个关键机制是“研究领域标准”（RDoC）计划，该计划与NIMH前局长托马斯·英塞尔（Thomas Insel）密切相关。本文探讨了美国（和英国）精神病学领域的关键人物如何构建模棱两可的RDoC项目的目的，性质和含义。也就是说，其新颖性是如何通过话语构成的。在本文中，我探索和分析了这些参与者对RDoC的新的，重要的（或不希望的）内容的说明，展示了它们是如何通过制度背景和个人情感构成的。在我对心理健康意见领袖的采访中，RDoC被认为过于依赖神经生物学认识论，与临床想象和要求背道而驰，并以自上而下的方式与科学研究的专业规范相抵触。最终，本文旨在为当前对当代（美国）精神病学的认识论和本体论政治的理解增加经验深度，并为科学技术研究（STS）关于“技术新”的辩论做出贡献。因此，我将有关RDoC的讨论作为新奇社会学的案例研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号