Abstract
Psychiatric classification is highly controversial, as could be witnessed again with the latest revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). These controversies comprise multiple kinds of critiques by a variety of actors. It is unlikely that all these issues will be overcome by one perfect solution in the future. Rather, it is precisely the DSM’s “one-size-fits-all-approach” that lies at the root of many of the current problems. To restore the scientific and public credibility of psychiatric classification, a multi-dimensional pluralist response is thus needed: (1) theoretical pluralism, meaning a promotion of different research projects and heuristic strategies, (2) taxonomic pluralism, which allows for different classifications used in research versus clinical practice, and (3) participatory pluralism, which concerns the diversity of perspectives and stakeholders in DSM-revisions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Perspectives on Science |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages (from-to) | 316-343 |
| Number of pages | 28 |
| ISSN | 1063-6145 |
| Publication status | Published - Apr 2019 |
| Externally published | Yes |