Université Bordeaux Montaigne, Laboratoire SPH - Philosophy Bordeaux, France.
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;43 Suppl 1:i53-66. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu106. Epub 2014 Jun 3.
This article traces the historical decisions, concepts and key professional collaborations that laid the foundations for the formation of American psychiatric epidemiology during the 20th century, up to the discipline's institutional consolidation, circa 1980, when the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) was published. Thomas Kuhn's 'disciplinary matrix' is mobilized as a framework that allows the institutional and intellectual construction of a discipline to be analysed as separate but intertwined components, without assuming that the two evolve in tandem. The identification of the strengths as well as the frailties and internal divisions of the discipline as it developed reveals a paradoxical situation: a time lag between psychiatric epidemiology's institutionalization and public recognition, on the one hand; and the weak coherence of its intellectual components, on the other hand. We briefly trace the origins of split among the discipline's aetiological models of mental disorders and suggest that the lack of coherence among them has prevented psychiatric epidemiology from achieving the status of a normal scientific discipline, in the Kuhnian sense. Without a more explicit attention to the intellectual rationale of the discipline, psychiatric epidemiology will continue to maintain a strong institutional dimension and weak intellectual matrix.
本文追溯了 20 世纪美国精神病学流行病学形成过程中的历史决策、概念和关键专业合作，直至该学科于 1980 年代左右的制度巩固，当时第三版《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》（DSM-III）出版。托马斯·库恩（Thomas Kuhn）的“学科矩阵”被动员起来作为一个框架，允许对学科的制度和知识构建进行分析，将其视为独立但相互交织的组成部分，而无需假设两者同时发展。随着学科的发展，确定其优势以及弱点和内部分歧揭示了一种矛盾的情况：一方面是精神病学流行病学的制度化和公众认知之间的时间滞后；另一方面是其知识成分之间的弱连贯性。我们简要追溯了精神障碍病因学模型在学科内部出现分歧的起源，并指出它们之间缺乏连贯性，这使得精神病学流行病学无法达到库恩意义上的正常科学学科的地位。如果没有更明确地关注学科的知识原理，精神病学流行病学将继续保持强大的制度维度和薄弱的知识矩阵。
