Research in psychopathology is booming in an unprecedented way, at least, in terms of increasing number of publications. Yet, a few questions arise: Does quantity also give us quality? Are the collected data generally of sound quality? How are data typically collected in psychopathology? Are the applied methods of data collection appropriate for this particular field of study? This article explores three different methods of data collection in psychopathology, namely self-rating scales, structured interviews, and semi-structured, phenomenological interviews. To identify the (...) most adequate methodological approach, we first establish the nature of the object of psychopathology and then we critically assess each method’s appropriateness to this field of study. We emphasize fundamental issues that make self-rating scales and structured interviews unfit for the task of adequately examining psychopathology. By contrast, we propose that a semi-structured, phenomenological interview presents a more appropriate method. Finally, we describe two types of semi-structured, phenomenological interviews that can be applied to assess and explore psychopathology, respectively. (shrink)

Research in psychopathology is booming in an unprecedented way, at least, in terms of increasing number of publications. Yet, a few questions arise: Does quantity also give us quality? Are the collected data generally of sound quality? How are data typically collected in psychopathology? Are the applied methods of data collection appropriate for this particular field of study? This article explores three different methods of data collection in psychopathology, namely self-rating scales, structured interviews, and semi-structured, phenomenological interviews. To identify the (...) most adequate methodological approach, we first establish the nature of the object of psychopathology and then we critically assess each method’s appropriateness to this field of study. We emphasize fundamental issues that make self-rating scales and structured interviews unfit for the task of adequately examining psychopathology. By contrast, we propose that a semi-structured, phenomenological interview presents a more appropriate method. Finally, we describe two types of semi-structured, phenomenological interviews that can be applied to assess and explore psychopathology, respectively. (shrink)

The research field of epistemic justice in healthcare has gained traction in the last decade. However, the importation of Miranda Fricker’s original philosophical framework to medicine raises several interrelated issues that have largely escaped attention. Instead of pushing forward, crafting new concepts or exploring other medical conditions, we suggest that it is time to take stock, reconsider, and articulate some fundamental issues that confront the field of epistemic injustice in healthcare. This paper articulates such fundamental issues, which we divide into (...) scientific, conceptual, and theoretical issues. Scientifically, the research field is confronted by a lack of empirical evidence. It relies on cases, making generalizations impossible and the field vulnerable to bias. Conceptually, many of the claims advanced in the literature are presented as facts but are merely hypotheses to be tested. Moreover, a criterion for applying the concept of testimonial injustice in medicine is lacking, impeding the development of a construct to empirically measure said injustices. Theoretically, many of the cases discussed in the literature do not prima facie qualify as cases of testimonial injustice, since they lack necessary components of testimonial injustice in Fricker’s framework, i.e., being unintentional and caused by identity prejudices in the hearers. If epistemic injustice is as pervasive as it is claimed in this literature, it should be of concern to us all. Addressing the issues raised here may strengthen the conceptualization of epistemic injustice in healthcare and lead to development of constructs that finally can explore its empirical basis. (shrink)