{"title":"全球治理专门知识生产的排他性和循环性:“全球心理健康”知识的形成","authors":"Annabelle Littoz-Monnet","doi":"10.1093/ips/olab035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Global mental health expertise favors biomedical explanations of mental disorders that conceive such disorders as stable entities, which can be diagnosed according to universal categories. Following this logic, universal and standardized solutions can also be applied throughout the world, regardless of context. Despite its assumptions and data being contested within the field of psychiatry itself, global mental health expertise has been highly stable. How is such expertise produced? Through what mechanisms are its products, such as reports, studies, or numbers, made and replicated? The article proposes a model of expertise production in global governance that discloses specific mechanisms of circularity and exclusivity in knowledge-making processes, which result in the circular and exclusive character of expertise itself. These include the circulation of profesionals and data across spheres and organizations, as well as the role played by several sites such as boundary expert groups, influential research clusters, and “policy-scientific” journals, which operate as powerful centers of knowledge production at the intersection of the policy, scientific or private spheres. Such sites not only act as loci where people's circulation operates at its best but also as autonomous mechanisms that produce, cement, and perpetuate the circularity and exclusivity of expertise beyond the role of specific individuals.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exclusivity and Circularity in the Production of Global Governance Expertise: The Making of “Global Mental Health” Knowledge\",\"authors\":\"Annabelle Littoz-Monnet\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ips/olab035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Global mental health expertise favors biomedical explanations of mental disorders that conceive such disorders as stable entities, which can be diagnosed according to universal categories. Following this logic, universal and standardized solutions can also be applied throughout the world, regardless of context. Despite its assumptions and data being contested within the field of psychiatry itself, global mental health expertise has been highly stable. How is such expertise produced? Through what mechanisms are its products, such as reports, studies, or numbers, made and replicated? The article proposes a model of expertise production in global governance that discloses specific mechanisms of circularity and exclusivity in knowledge-making processes, which result in the circular and exclusive character of expertise itself. These include the circulation of profesionals and data across spheres and organizations, as well as the role played by several sites such as boundary expert groups, influential research clusters, and “policy-scientific” journals, which operate as powerful centers of knowledge production at the intersection of the policy, scientific or private spheres. Such sites not only act as loci where people's circulation operates at its best but also as autonomous mechanisms that produce, cement, and perpetuate the circularity and exclusivity of expertise beyond the role of specific individuals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Political Sociology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Political Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olab035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olab035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exclusivity and Circularity in the Production of Global Governance Expertise: The Making of “Global Mental Health” Knowledge
Global mental health expertise favors biomedical explanations of mental disorders that conceive such disorders as stable entities, which can be diagnosed according to universal categories. Following this logic, universal and standardized solutions can also be applied throughout the world, regardless of context. Despite its assumptions and data being contested within the field of psychiatry itself, global mental health expertise has been highly stable. How is such expertise produced? Through what mechanisms are its products, such as reports, studies, or numbers, made and replicated? The article proposes a model of expertise production in global governance that discloses specific mechanisms of circularity and exclusivity in knowledge-making processes, which result in the circular and exclusive character of expertise itself. These include the circulation of profesionals and data across spheres and organizations, as well as the role played by several sites such as boundary expert groups, influential research clusters, and “policy-scientific” journals, which operate as powerful centers of knowledge production at the intersection of the policy, scientific or private spheres. Such sites not only act as loci where people's circulation operates at its best but also as autonomous mechanisms that produce, cement, and perpetuate the circularity and exclusivity of expertise beyond the role of specific individuals.
期刊介绍:
International Political Sociology (IPS), responds to the need for more productive collaboration among political sociologists, international relations specialists and sociopolitical theorists. It is especially concerned with challenges arising from contemporary transformations of social, political, and global orders given the statist forms of traditional sociologies and the marginalization of social processes in many approaches to international relations. IPS is committed to theoretical innovation, new modes of empirical research and the geographical and cultural diversification of research beyond the usual circuits of European and North-American scholarship.