Abstract
Background
The concept of schizophrenia has been contested since its inception. Over the last decades, criticism of the concept has become increasingly mainstream and calls for its abandonment have intensified. Nevertheless, the concept remains widely used and retains taken-for-granted status within much mental health research and practice. The combination of its contested status and continued use raises questions about how it is used and with what implications for people who receive the diagnosis.
Methods
This study explores how ‘schizophrenia’ is spoken about by mental health professionals who use the diagnosis in day-to-day practice. Eight interviews with professionals across professions were analysed using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis.
Results
Two striking and consistent themes were identified. The first is a discrepancy between the way participants talked about ‘schizophrenia’ to the interviewer, and the way they described talking about it in clinical encounters. The second is the potentially entrapping impact of the wider discourses participants drew on in talk about clinical encounters.
Conclusions
The study concludes with reflections on how those working in the mental health field can break out of this discursive entrapment, and help the people they work with do the same.
The concept of schizophrenia has been contested since its inception. Over the last decades, criticism of the concept has become increasingly mainstream and calls for its abandonment have intensified. Nevertheless, the concept remains widely used and retains taken-for-granted status within much mental health research and practice. The combination of its contested status and continued use raises questions about how it is used and with what implications for people who receive the diagnosis.
Methods
This study explores how ‘schizophrenia’ is spoken about by mental health professionals who use the diagnosis in day-to-day practice. Eight interviews with professionals across professions were analysed using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis.
Results
Two striking and consistent themes were identified. The first is a discrepancy between the way participants talked about ‘schizophrenia’ to the interviewer, and the way they described talking about it in clinical encounters. The second is the potentially entrapping impact of the wider discourses participants drew on in talk about clinical encounters.
Conclusions
The study concludes with reflections on how those working in the mental health field can break out of this discursive entrapment, and help the people they work with do the same.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 357-367 |
| Journal | Psychosis |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 8 Jul 2022 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- Critical psychology
- Discourse analysis
- Psychiatric diagnosis
- Schizophrenia
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Trapped in contradictions: professionals’ accounts of the concept of schizophrenia and its use in clinical practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver