Digitising psychiatry? Sociotechnical expectations, performative nominalism and biomedical virtue in (digital) psychiatric praxis

Abstract

Digital artefacts and infrastructures have been presented as ever more urgent and necessary for mental health research and practice. Telepsychiatry, mHealth, and now digital psychiatry have been promoted in this regard, among other endeavours. Smartphone apps have formed a particular focus of promissory statements regarding the improvement of epistemic and clinical work in psychiatry. This article contextualises and historicises some of these developments. In doing so, I show how purportedly novel fields have been constituted in part through practices of ‘performative nominalism’ (whereby articulations of a neologism in relation to established and recent developments participate in producing the referent of the new term). Central to this has been implicit and explicit extolment of what I term biomedical virtues in public‐facing and professionally orientated discourse. I document how emphases on various virtues have shifted with the attention of psychiatry to different digital modalities, culminating with knowledge‐production in mental health as one significant focus.

Good organizational reasons for better medical records: The data work of clinical documentation integrity specialists

“…While virtues are possessed by groups-such as an occupation-they only do so through the situated practice of people who animate the institution (Fricker, 2010). Multiple virtues may be employed, as in the case of digital psychiatry, where virtues include access to treatment, enhancement of clinical decision-making, and new insights into disease (Pickersgill, 2019). Though working within healthcare and medicine, CDIS's virtues are not biomedical as such.…”

Feminism and a Vital Politics of Depression and Recovery

“…While medical models are increasingly called to broaden their focus on biopsychosocial processes in recovery, the bio-psycho-social are not often thought together in terms of ontological assumptions about self and world (Blackman, 2012). Much of the focus of traditional research has intensified an ontological politics of mind-body that is implicated in producing decontextualized disorders, as neuroscience privileges the imbalanced but plastic brain and psychology the disordered but resilient mind (Pickersgill, 2018;Pykett, 2015;Rose & Abi-Rached, 2013). The default location of agency within the psyindividual (in particular within the brain and mind) actually creates dilemmas in mental health care systems that require the active performance of self-care that aligns with expert treatment within contexts of high demand (but not necessarily high success rates in terms of recovery) (Dalal, 2015).…”

Global Mental Health: Interdisciplinary challenges for a field in motion

“…''Few have access to care, but most have access to a digital device,'' the common argument goes, suggesting the narrowing digital divide provides a way to close the treatment gap. The promises of technology -as is often the case -are depicted as nothing short of revolutionary: The point of care and data collection moves into the patient's pocket; local constraint and scarcity can be circumvented and millions reached at once at unprecedented scale (Doraiswamy et al, 2019;Pickersgill 2019). However, digital approaches are diverse and this specificity matters (Heerden, Tomlinson, & Swartz, 2012).…”