Tracking the Objects of the Psychopathology

On Interdisciplinarity of Psychopathology on the Margins of
Historia polskiego szaleństwa

Avant, Vol. XI, No. 1, doi: 10.26913/avant.2020.01.05
published under license CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Przemysław R. Nowakowski orcid-id
Institute of Philosophy and Sociology
Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
pnowakowski @ ifispan.waw.pl

Published 12 December 2019   Download full text

Abstract: This paper is a loose commentary on Marcinów’s book (2017). The commentary is focused on the objects of psychopathological investigations and the role of psychology / psychiatry tension in the process of singling out, tracking, and describing them. As a consequence, there are limitations of collaborative and integrative efforts between psychologists and psychiatrists where questions of psychopathology are concerned.

Keywords: Mira Marcinów; psychopathology; history of psychology; history of psychiatry; biography of psychological objects; interdisciplinarity


References

Ankeny, R. A., & Leonelli, S. (2016). Repertoires: A post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 60, 18-28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.08.003
Armsworth, P. R., Gaston, K. J., Hanley, N. D., & Ruffell, R. J. (2009). Contrasting approaches to statistical regression in ecology and economics. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(2), 265-268.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01628.x
Berrios, G. (2008). Descriptive psychiatry and psychiatric nosology during the nineteenth century. In: History of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, Springer. 353-379.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34708-0_11
Berrios, G. E. (1984). Descriptive psychopathology: conceptual and historical aspects. Psychological medicine, 14(2), 303-313.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700003573
Berrios, G. E. (1988). Melancholia and depression during the 19th century: a conceptual history. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 153(3), 298-304.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.153.3.298
Berrios, G. E. (1996). The history of mental symptoms: descriptive psychopathology since the nineteenth century. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511526725
Bluhm, R. (2017). The need for new ontologies in psychiatry. Philosophical Explorations, 20(2), 146-159.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2017.1312498
Blustein, B. E. (1981). ‘A Hollow Square of Psychological Science’: American Neurologists and Psychiatrists in Conflict. Scull, Madhouses, Maddoctors, and Madmen, 241(270), 218-240.
https://doi.org/10.9783/9781512806823-014
Boden, M. A. (1999). What is interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowledge in Europe, Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 13-23.
Borsboom, D. (2017). A network theory of mental disorders. World psychiatry, 16(1), 5-13.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20375
Borsboom, D., Kievit, R. A., Cervone, D., & Hood, S. B. (2009). The two disciplines of scientific psychology, or: The disunity of psychology as a working hypothesis. W Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences, Springer, 67-97.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-95922-1_4
Brock, A., Louw, J., & van Hoorn, W. (2006). Rediscovering the history of psychology: Essays inspired by the work of Kurt Danziger. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/b106634
Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776530
Campaner, R. (2014). Explanatory Pluralism in Psychiatry: What Are We Pluralists About, and Why? In. New directions in the philosophy of science, In. M.C. Galavotti, D. Dieks,, W.J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, Th. Uebel, M. Weber, (Eds.) Springer, 87-103.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1_7
Clark, M. J. (1981). The rejection of psychological approaches to mental disorder in late nineteenth-century British psychiatry. In. Madhouses, Mad-Doctors and Madmen, Scull, A.T. (Ed.), Athlone Press: London, 271-312.
https://doi.org/10.9783/9781512806823-015
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American psychologist, 12(11), 671.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043943
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Danziger, K. (1993). Psychological objects, practice, and history. W Annals of theoretical psychology, Springer, 15-47.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2982-8_2
Danziger, K. (1994). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press.
Danziger, K. (2003). Where history, theory, and philosophy meet: The biography of psychological objects.In. About psychology: Essays at the crossroads of history, theory, and philosophy, D. B. Hill, M. J. Kral (Eds.), SUNY Press, 19-33.
Danziger, K. (2013). Psychology and its history. Theory & Psychology, 23(6), 829-839.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354313502746
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243(4899), 1668-1674.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573
Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2016). Interdisciplinary success without integration. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 343-360.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0139-z
Haslam, N. (2013). Reliability, validity, and the mixed blessings of operationalism. In K. W. M. Fulford, M. Davies, G. Graham, J. Sadler, G. Stanghellini, & T. Thornton (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of philosophy and psychiatry Oxford: Oxford University Press., 987-1002.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199579563.013.0058
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Stanislow, C., Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatric, 167(7), 748-751
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379
Insel, T. R. (2014). The NIMH research domain criteria (RDoC) project: precision medicine for psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(4), 395-397.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14020138
Keeley, J. W. (2014). The background assumptions of measurement practices in psychological assessment and psychiatric diagnosis In. Alternative Perspectives on Psychiatric Validation: DSM, ICD, RDoC, and Beyond, P. Zachar, D. St. Stoyanov, M. Aragona, A. Jablensky , Oxford University Press, 94-111.
https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199680733.003.0006
Kendell, R., & Jablensky, A. (2003). Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses. American journal of psychiatry, 160(1), 4-12.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.4
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, 15, 15-30.
Koskinen, I., & Mäki, U. (2016). Extra-academic transdisciplinarity and scientific pluralism: what might they learn from one another? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 419-444.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0141-5
Lefere, S., De Rouck, R., & De Vreese, L. (2017). What to expect from reliability and validity claims? A pragmatic conception of psychiatric nosology. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 23(5), 981-987.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12686
Leonelli, S., & Ankeny, R. A. (2015). Repertoires: how to transform a project into a research community. BioScience, 65(7), 701-708.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv061
Lindzey, G., Runyan, W. M., & Association, A. P. (2007). A History of psychology in autobiography Volume IX. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/11571-000
MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195(2), 697-720.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4
MacLeod, M., & Nagatsu, M. (2018). What does interdisciplinarity look like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environmental sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 67, 74-84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.001
MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2016). Interdisciplinary problem-solving: emerging modes in integrative systems biology. European journal for philosophy of science, 6(3), 401-418.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0157-x
Marcinów, M. (2017). Historia polskiego szaleństwa. Słońce wśród czarnego nieba. Studium melancholii. (T. I). Gdańsk: Fundaca Terytoria Książki.
Mora, G. (1970). The history of psychiatry: Its relevance for the psychiatrist. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126(7), 957-967.
https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.126.7.957
Peterson, D. (2016). The baby factory: Difficult research objects, disciplinary standards, and the production of statistical significance. Socius, 2, 2378023115625071.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023115625071
Peterson, D. (2017). The depth of fields: Managing focus in the epistemic subcultures of mind and brain science. Social studies of science, 47(1), 53-74.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716663047
Sierra, M., & Berrios, G. E. (1997). Depersonalization: a conceptual history. History of Psychiatry, 8(30), 213-229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957154X9700803002
Sullivan, J. (2014). Stabilizing Mental Disorders: Prospects and Problems. In. Classifying Psychopathology: Mental Kinds and Natural Kinds, . J. Sullivan & H. Kincaid (Eds.), Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press, 257-281.
Sullivan, J. (2009). The multiplicity of experimental protocols: a challenge to reductionist and non-reductionist models of the unity of neuroscience. Synthese, 167(3), 511-539.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9389-4
Sullivan, J. (2017). Coordinated pluralism as a means to facilitate integrative taxonomies of cognition. Philosophical explorations, 20(2), 129-145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2017.1312497
Tabb, K. (2019). Philosophy of psychiatry after diagnostic kinds. Synthese, 196 (6):2177-2195
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1659-6
van Bork, R., Epskamp, S., Rhemtulla, M., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. (2017). What is the p-factor of psychopathology? Some risks of general factor modeling. Theory & Psychology, 27(6), 759-773.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317737185
Van Bouwel, J. (2014). Pluralists about pluralism? Different versions of explanatory pluralism in psychiatry. W New directions in the philosophy of science, Springer, 105-119.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1_8
Wagenknecht, S. (2016). A Social Epistemology of Research Groups. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52410-2
Zachar, P. (2012). Progress and the calibration of scientific constructs: the role of comparative validity. In. Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry II: nosology. Kendler K, Parnas J (Eds.). Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom, 21-34.
https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199642205.003.0005
Zachar, P., & Jablensky, A. (2014). Introduction: The concept of validation in psychiatry and psychology. In. Alternative Perspectives on Psychiatric Validation: DSM, ICD, RDoC, and Beyond, P. Zachar, D. St. Stoyanov, M. Aragona, A. Jablensky , Oxford University Press, 3-26.
https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199680733.003.0001

Comments are closed.