Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Lafrance, M.N., McKenzie-Mohr, S. (February 2013). The DSM and its lure of legitimacy. Feminism and psychology, 23(1), 119-140.

Abstract: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) offers a biomedical framing of people’s experiences of distress and impairment, and despite decades of criticism, it remains the dominant approach. This dominance is maintained not only by powerful corporate interests such as the pharmaceutical industry, but also through the everyday talk of people as they attempt to make meaning of themselves and their experiences. This paper explores how and why the DSM holds such cultural currency for individual speakers, and unpacks what is being accomplished in their taking up the language of psychiatric diagnosis. In particular, we argue that a biomedical construction of distress offers the lure, or promise, of validating persons’ pain and legitimizing their identities. However, we also argue that the very assumptions of biomedicine ensure that this promise can never entirely be fulfilled and, despite its lure, a biomedical construction of ‘mental illness’ all too frequently fails to protect individuals from delegitimation and stigma.

Article 2: Porter, J.S., & Risler, E. (January 2014). The New Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. Research on social work practice, 24(1), 50-56.

Abstract: Purpose: Assess the new alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) model for personality disorders (PDs) as it is seen by its creators and critics. Method: Follow the DSM revision process by monitoring the American Psychiatric Association website and the publication of pertinent journal articles. Results: The DSM-5 PD Work Group’s proposal was not included in the main diagnostic section of the new DSM, but it was published in the section devoted to emerging models. The alternative DSM-5 PD constructs are radically different from those found in DSM, fourth edition, text revision.
Discussion: There are some positive conceptual changes in the new model, but reliability and validity are not generally improved. However, social workers may be able to benefit from the use of the personality trait domains/facets of the alternative model.