The intersubjective endeavor of psychopathology research: methodological reflections on a second-person perspective approach.
Laura Galbusera, Lisa C. Fellin
Frontiers in Psychology 2014 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01150 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Intersubjectivity Methodology Psychopathology research Second-person perspective Social understanding |
| Key points | Argues that a second-person perspective should inform the epistemology and methods of psychopathology research, as it recognizes the fundamental circular and intersubjective construction of knowledge. |
Abstract
Research in psychopathology may be considered as an intersubjective endeavor mainly concerned with understanding other minds. Thus, the way we conceive of social understanding influences how we do research in psychology in the first place. In this paper, we focus on psychopathology research as a paradigmatic case for this methodological issue, since the relation between the researcher and the object of study is characterized by a major component of "otherness." We critically review different methodologies in psychopathology research, highlighting their relation to different social cognition theories (the third-, first-, and second-person approaches). Hence we outline the methodological implications arising from each theoretical stance. Firstly, we critically discuss the dominant paradigm in psychopathology research, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and on quantitative methodology, as an example of a third-person methodology. Secondly, we contrast this mainstream view with phenomenological psychopathology which-by rejecting the reductionist view exclusively focused on behavioral symptoms-takes consciousness as its main object of study: it therefore attempts to grasp patients' first-person experience. But how can we speak about a first-person perspective in psychopathology if the problem at stake is the experience of the other? How is it possible to understand the experience from "within," if the person who is having this experience is another? By addressing these issues, we critically explore the feasibility and usefulness of a second-person methodology in psychopathology research. Notwithstanding the importance of methodological pluralism, we argue that a second-person perspective should inform the epistemology and methods of research in psychopathology, as it recognizes the fundamental circular and intersubjective construction of knowledge.
Citations in the library
Cited by 10
- Enactive and simondonian reflections on mental disorders. Frontiers in Psychology August 3, 2022
- Examination of self patterns: framing an alternative phenomenological interview for use in mental health research and clinical practice. Frontiers in Psychology 2024
- From analytic to synthetic-organizational pluralisms: A pluralistic enactive psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychiatry 2022
- They have taken out my spinal cord: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of self-boundary in psychotic experience within a sociocentric culture. Frontiers in Psychiatry July 20, 2023
- Varieties of normativity and mental health: an enactive approach Synthese January 16, 2025
and 5 more in the library
Cites 6
- Rediscovering psychopathology: the epistemology and phenomenology of the psychiatric object. Schizophrenia Bulletin December 23, 2012
- The psychiatric interview: validity, structure, and subjectivity. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience September 23, 2012
- The interactive brain hypothesis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience June 7, 2012
- Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in psychiatric diagnosis. Psychopathology 2010
- The concept of psychosis: historical and phenomenological aspects. Schizophrenia Bulletin January 3, 2008
and 1 more in the library