Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0071231583 = product of:
  0.028492633 = sum of:
    0.028492633 = weight(_text_:library in 860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028492633 = score(doc=860,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13870415 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052751686 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 860, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=860)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Psychiatric classification is a profoundly important activity that directs subsequent treatment decisions, assumptions about etiology, and prognostic considerations. While the ideal classification scheme would be clear, concise, comprehensively inclusive of, and hospitable to, the entities under consideration, in practice, all classification systems reflect trade-offs and embody flawed structures. Accordingly, it is essential to be fully cognizant of the shortcomings, biases, and tacit assumptions of extant systems so that classifications can be improved and so that misrepresentations will not be blindly repeated or reproduced. Modern psychiatric classification and diagnosis are almost exclusively defined within the context of the nomenclature and diagnostic categories of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This article adapts Giddens's (1984) theory of "structuration" to explain how at least some of the consequences of relying on the DSM for classification result in unexamined conditions of its use and unintentionally reproduced its underlying assumptions. This article uses the DSM to explicate agency in structuration theory and structuration theory to illuminate the structure and use of the DSM. The discussion suggests that Mouzelis's (1995) four-fold duality-dualism typology, by empowering the agent not only virtually but in actuality, is a necessary and salutary modification of structuration theory. Finally, it will be suggested that several prominent issues and concerns in psychiatric nosology resonate profoundly with those that have concerned, and continue to interest, library classificationists.

Source

Library trends. 47(1998) no.2, S.313-337

0.0070515675 = product of:
  0.02820627 = sum of:
    0.02820627 = weight(_text_:library in 198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02820627 = score(doc=198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13870415 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052751686 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=198)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In a series of articles, Don Swanson explores the problem of associating two or more literatures that are logically, or substantively, related, but bibliographically noninteractive. He has called these implicit links among published literatures undicovered public knowledge. This article explores the fate of Swanson's ideas, using citation content analysis both to determine which authors have utilized Swanson's ideas and to examine the uses to which they have been put. The results suggest that while Swanson has received significant attention from the library and information science community, his ideas have not been widely cited in biomedical disciplines, and, when cited, only with rhetorically dismissive qualifications that detracts from their facticity. These results are interpreted as a failed instance of interdisciplinarity communication, and several explanations of this failure are discussed