McVittie Chris
School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, UK.
J Health Psychol. 2006 May;11(3):373-7; author reply 401-8. doi: 10.1177/1359105306063307.
Hepworth argues for critical health psychology (CHP) to move on from binary opposition to mainstream health psychology (MHP) and to engage with other researchers in projects of common interest. In doing so, CHP can take up Murray and Campbell's earlier 'call to action' and avoid the risk of isolation. However neither action nor cross-subject collaboration are necessarily appropriate strategies for all elements of a pluralistic CHP that encompasses a diversity of epistemological positions. Conducting research on others' terms also holds risks for the development of work that remains critical. The potential contributions of a pluralistic CHP, by way of action or otherwise, might usefully be judged in relation to both the distal and proximate contexts of health issues.
赫普沃思主张批判性健康心理学（CHP）应摆脱与主流健康心理学（MHP）的二元对立，转而与其他研究人员共同参与有共同兴趣的项目。这样一来，CHP可以响应默里和坎贝尔早期的“行动呼吁”，避免孤立的风险。然而，对于包含多种认识论立场的多元CHP的所有要素而言，行动或跨学科合作并不一定都是合适的策略。按照他人的条件进行研究对于保持批判性的工作发展也存在风险。多元CHP通过行动或其他方式可能做出的潜在贡献，可以根据健康问题的远端和近端背景进行有益的判断。
