The bad expert

"Pills Don't Teach Skills": ADHD Coaching, Identity Work, and the Push toward the Liminal Medicalization of ADHD

Despite physicians' near monopoly over medicalization historically, various stakeholder groups shape an increasingly complex process today. This study examines a relatively new initiative, "health coaching," within the context of the changing nature of medicalization. Utilizing 51 in-depth interviews with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) coaches, participant observation from seven ADHD symposia, and ADHD coach publications, I examine coaching's emergence as a partial challenge to medicalization. Findings reveal a field comprised mainly of individuals personally affected by ADHD whose dissatisfaction with institutionalized framings and practices underpins a push for liminal medicalization. Members move between medical and nonmedical discourses to frame ADHD as a paradox of pathology and gift. Additionally, they leverage and commodify personal experience alongside institutional and alternative knowledge into an adjunct or substitute to medication and potential challenge to therapy-one aimed at "self-actualization" versus "treatment." Such efforts highlight (de)medicalization's dimensionality, simultaneous medicalization and demedicalization, and a lay-driven enterprise's role in such processes.

Performative credibility: How opioid researchers sustain public trust during the opioid epidemic

Experts often face credibility challenges during times of crisis. However, opioid use disorder (OUD) researchers preserved their scientific credibility despite the increasing public scrutiny of medical knowledge during the opioid epidemic. Building on 30 in-depth interviews with OUD researchers, this article examines how researchers conduct scientific research, collaborate with non-expert stakeholders, and communicate research outcomes to the public. It distinguishes between performative credibility - a discourse enacted through languages, meanings, and symbols in constructing the reality of credibility, and descriptive credibility - the description, perception, and measurements of credibility under a given credibility discourse. It argues that the crisis of expertise is situational - it depends on whether and how performative credibility is sustained. This article finds that OUD researchers enact at least three credibility discourses: professional, data-driven, and community-centered. While researchers can have multiple discourses in mind, their choices of enacting a specific credibility discourse when interacting with non-experts and the public are contingent upon their rankings in the profession, medical training backgrounds, forms of patient interactions, and access to OUD medications. This case recenters sociological studies of expertise and trust on the enacting power of experts' statements and actions. It also reveals the relevance of social locations in understanding the formation of the credibility crisis. Finally, it provides a conceptual framework for understanding public (mis)trust in science and medicine.

Beyond a literacy model for psychiatry in the mass media

Professional statements suggest that psychiatrists engage in media work to supply a general audience with medical knowledge informed by relevant professional expertise. However, media work may be motivated by interests other than disinterested service to the well-being of the public, such as fame, money and a platform for one's wider views. The role of media psychiatrist is also crucially shaped by the unpredictable needs of a complex media ecology and marketplace. Furthermore, the properties of the media, and different forms within them, bring implicit meanings such as the wider authorisation of therapeutic self-reflection or the promotion of para-social intimacy. Finally, the media psychiatrist may function as an entrepreneur, converting the currency of celebrity into new forms of cultural, social and political capital. Professional guidelines for media work should be updated in light of such observations.