Showing papers by "Tony Ward published in 2020"

Mental disorder as both natural and normative: Developing the normative dimension of the 3e conceptual framework for psychopathology.

Abstract: Current arguments concerning the role of normativity within the concept of mental disorder are explored, and some requirements of a successful normative construal sketched out. We then shift to a discussion of "natural" normativity to lay the groundwork for our own understanding of what counts as a mental disorder. The view we present is grounded in an enactive, embodied, and embedded view of the mind (3e cognition). The position argued for is one where the labeling of a particular set of behaviors as disordered or dysfunctional is justified by the significant violation of norms, but where the norms in question are not socially imposed, rather they are the functional norms of the individual being diagnosed. The strengths and weaknesses of our position are discussed, and an addendum is proposed in response to a foreseeable counterargument. This construal provides a conceptual framework for thinking critically about normative issues in diagnosis, appreciates how central normativity is to the concept of mental disorder, and, finally (in being tied to the functionality of the individual), places the institutions of psychiatry and clinical psychology on good ethical ground and allows for consideration of cultural and individual variation during the diagnostic process.

Phenomena complexes as targets of explanation in psychopathology: The relational analysis of phenomena approach:

Abstract: In this article, we briefly overview some current approaches to identifying targets of explanation in psychopathology. We suggest that DSM syndromes and symptom network models are too large to faci...

Why theory matters in correctional psychology

Abstract: Contemporary forensic psychology is characterized by a relative lack of attention to theory building and conceptual analysis. In my view, this neglect of theory amounts to theoretical illiteracy and represents a significant obstacle to the explanation of crime and its management. In this paper I explore the problem of theoretical illiteracy for forensic psychological research and practice. First, I discuss why theory is important in science and the dangers of ignoring it. Second, I review the role of theory in addressing the myriad of practical problems facing human beings. Third, I outline three strategies to increase researchers and practitioners’ appreciation of theory construction and development: adopting a more comprehensive model of scientific method, epistemic iteration, and promoting model pluralism. Fourth, I examine two examples of core concepts from correctional psychology, that of dynamic risk factors and classification, and demonstrate how the above strategies can be used to address problems with these constructs.

Theory construction in the psychopathology domain: A multiphase approach:

Abstract: Our understanding of mental disorders is facilitated by our theoretical explanations of them. At present, these explanations are practically and theoretically insufficient; possessing widespread co...

Conceptualising illness and disease: reflections on Sharpe and Greco (2019)

Abstract: In a recent paper, Sharpe and Greco suggest that chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (MECFS) can be viewed as an instance of “illness without disease”, and consequently, treatment should be directed towards altering the patient’s experience of, and response to, their symptoms. We discuss two broad issues that arise from Sharpe and Greco’s article, one relating to the assumptions they make about MECFS and its treatment specifically, and the other relating to their conceptualisation of the illness/disease dichotomy. We argue that the term “illness without disease”, in the sense that Sharpe and Greco use it, is problematic because it can lead to unwarranted causal assumptions. Following these critical comments, we present a new framework for conceptualising the relationship between explanatory disease models and the experience of illness.

Delinquenz kultursensibel erklären – ein theoretisches Rahmenmodell

Abstract: Die hohe kulturelle Diversitat der Straffalligenpopulation bringt eine ganze Reihe an Herausforderungen fur Forschung und Praxis mit sich. Diesen Herausforderungen ist mit gangigen Erklarungsmodellen von Delinquenz jedoch kaum zu begegnen. Einerseits bestehen erhebliche Zweifel an deren allgemeiner Gultigkeit im interkulturellen Kontext, weil sie fast ausschlieslich fur den euroamerikanischen Raum entwickelt wurden. Andererseits bauen viele der Theorien auf dem Konzept der dynamischen Risikofaktoren auf, welches vage definiert ist. Viele dieser Theorien konnen Delinquenz kaum erklaren, weil sie die zugrunde liegenden psychologischen Mechanismen nur wenig spezifizieren. Mit dem Cultural Agency-Model of Criminal Behavior (CAMCB) schlagen die Autoren ein Rahmenmodell vor, das auf die zugrunde liegenden individuellen psychologischen Mechanismen zielgerichteten Handelns abhebt und dabei systematisch zwischen universellen Komponenten und deren kulturell und individuell gefarbten Auspragungen differenziert. Im CAMCB wird der Einfluss der kulturellen Sozialisation nicht an eine geografische oder ethnische Herkunft gebunden, sondern an kulturelle „traits“ (z. B. interdependenter Verarbeitungsstil), welche die Verhaltensgenese allgemein beeinflussen. An einem Beispiel wird gezeigt, dass delinquentes Verhalten je nach angenommenem kulturellen Trait unterschiedlich erklart werden kann, wahrend sich die Situation und die Reaktion nicht unterscheiden mussen. Wesentlich sind: erstens die Identifikation der universellen Verhaltenskomponenten, zweitens die Beschreibung deren kulturell und individuell gefarbter Auspragungen und drittens die Erklarung von Delinquenz auf der Grundlage dieses Wissens. Dieses stufenweise Vorgehen erscheint nicht nur fur die kriminalpsychologische Theorieentwicklung von Bedeutung, sondern auch fur die forensische Praxis, bei der fur jeden Einzelfall kultursensibel eine individuelle Delinquenztheorie formuliert werden muss.

The Explanation of Eating Disorders: A Critical Analysis

Abstract: Eating disorders (EDs) are one of the most severe and complex mental health problems facing researchers and clinicians today. The effective prevention and treatment of these conditions is therefore of paramount importance. However, at present our treatments fall short: generally demonstrating only poor to moderate efficacy, and often completely ineffective for severe or chronic cases. A possible reason for this is that the current theories underlying these treatments are flawed. In this paper, we review and evaluate several prominent theoretical explanations associated with current frontline and promising treatments for ED. In doing so, we identify fundamental problems within the construction of current ED explanations and their implications for treatment. In response to these findings, we propose several strategies for the construction of future ED explanations which we believe have the power to ameliorate these problems and potentially help to develop more efficacious treatment downstream.

Clinicians' perspectives of forensic rehabilitation.

Abstract: Having sought 22 clinicians' views of how rehabilitation was practised in a forensic mental health service, this study explores whether or not these views are consistent with claims that forensic rehabilitation can be hampered by the lack of a coherent rehabilitation framework. Two major, mutually influencing themes emerged from the participants' narratives, the first of which delineates the culture and functioning of individuals and systems in a forensic service and the underlying philosophies and beliefs guiding professional behaviour. The second theme outlines the participants' views of the ways in which client needs are assessed and how clients are subsequently provided with the skills and opportunities required for their rehabilitation. The results indicate that while the participants perceived that there were positive aspects to the forensic mental health care that was provided; they also stated that systematicity in the formulation and provision of forensic mental health clients' needs was lacking. These findings reinforce previous claims that there needs to be a theoretically sound means of embedding and systematising effective rehabilitation practice in forensic services.

Reformulating Dynamic Risk Factors and Practice Implications

Abstract: The field has reached a point where Dynamic Risk Factors (DRF) are no longer adequate explanations for offending, we need more comprehensive and mechanistic explanations of behavior to guide individual case formulations and treatment. In this chapter we first briefly outline a unique conceptual framework to guide researchers in constructing general explanatory theories of offending. While this is a framework for research, it has practical implications for the treatment of individuals who have committed offences. We suggest that its main application at this stage is in the formulation of individual cases, as it can guide practitioners’ reasoning about the different capacities and mechanisms which may be relevant to behavior and thus behavior change. We discuss the implications of this in terms of current approaches to rehabilitation.

Critical Analysis of Dynamic Risk Factors

Abstract: The assumption that dynamic risk factors (DRF) are causal concepts as well as predictive ones is apparent in their dual roles in practice and in the theories explored in the previous chapter; an assumption that we argue is mistaken. In this chapter we examine a number of conceptual and empirical problems with DRF which we view as arising from their composite nature. Specifically, the conceptual problems of incoherence, lack of specificity or reference, the grain problem, and lack of factualness or normativity. We will then briefly summarize the state of empirical research which has looked at the statistical relationship between DRF and behavior. We suggest that these many flaws mean that they cannot play meaningful explanatory or treatment planning roles, at least not in their current state.

Reformulating Dynamic Risk Factors

Abstract: We have so far argued that the relationship between dynamic risk factors (DRF) and offending is not as straight-forward as commonly presumed, and therefore they cannot be considered causes of behavior. In this chapter we draw from current research in the domains of psychopathology classification and treatment, and medical epidemiology to formulate a set of methodological guidelines to help researchers translate DRF into explanatory constructs. The aim of this chapter is to outline the ways in which these offence correlates can be utilised within explanations of behavior. There is clearly an association between these factors and offending, but as argued in the previous chapter it should not be assumed that this is a causal relationship.

Current Conceptualizations of Dynamic Risk Factors

Abstract: Dynamic risk factors (DRF) are arguably the most important construct in forensic and correctional psychology. They are the basis of risk prediction and management, and the foundation of intervention programs aiming to reduce crime. In this chapter we outline a number of influential contemporary views of DRF. First, we define DRF and discuss the various types of crime-related factors. Next, we discuss their origins and conceptualization within the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC), followed by a description of their dual roles in practice. Then we outline their place within explanations of offending, focusing mainly on theories of sexual offending. We conclude this chapter by highlighting the importance of developing explanations of offending which rely upon causal mechanisms. This chapter is intended to emphasize the reliance on these foundational constructs in correctional practice aimed at reducing crime and the research which informs these crucial tasks. This highlights the critical nature of questions about what exactly DRF are, how they relate to behavior, and how we should use them within treatment and risk management.