Reframing Expertise in Psychiatric Classification: Values, Objectivity, and Institutional Reform

Congratulations to Christina Leach Allan for successfully defending their MA thesis, "Reframing Expertise in Psychiatric Classification: Values, Objectivity, and Institutional Reform" on June 29, 2026. The thesis was supervised by Megan Delehanty. It was examined by Agnes Tam, Marc Ereshefsky.

We asked Christina to provide us with some insight into her thesis and her graduate studies experience in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Calgary. 

What was your thesis about?

My thesis examines how we classify mental disorders and why the process of diagnostic revision plays such an important role in clinical practice and in the everyday lives of people who seek care. Systems like the DSM influence who receives a diagnosis, what kinds of treatment are offered, and how mental health is understood in sociocultural contexts. I argue that psychiatric classification should be understood as a hybrid practice shaped by empirical evidence, social values, institutional structures, and the lived experiences of those most affected by diagnostic decisions. This perspective helps explain why debates about objectivity in psychiatry cannot be resolved by appealing only to scientific data. Drawing on social accounts of objectivity, I argue that psychiatry requires diverse forms of expertise, including experiential knowledge, to identify blind spots, interpret symptoms, and evaluate the real‑world consequences of diagnostic criteria.

From this standpoint, I examine why current DSM governance structures struggle to incorporate criticism or meaningfully engage with lived‑experience perspectives. My thesis argues that the main obstacle to objectivity is institutional rather than conceptual, and that the current DSM revision process is not designed to support the epistemic diversity psychiatry needs.

To address these challenges, I propose a dual‑layer model (drawn from public health policy) that combines external inter‑organizational networks with internal lived‑experience governance. This structure creates a continuous feedback loop that allows diagnostic categories to evolve in response to real‑world outcomes and emerging evidence. Overall, my project aims show how rethinking the organization of expertise can strengthen the reliability and democratic legitimacy of the DSM revision process, while also ensuring that the people most affected by diagnostic decisions have a meaningful role in shaping them.

What was the most valuable outcome of the graduate program for you?

There’s something genuinely special about this department. The collegiality of staff and students, the diversity of perspectives, and the atmosphere of support and encouragement all came together to create an amazing experience for me. I had the freedom to pursue my research interests, present my work at conferences, and gain valuable teaching experience in variety of roles. I feel the program has prepared me well for the next stage of my academic and professional journey. I will miss being a part of such a vibrant and welcoming environment! 

What are the next steps for you?

I am currently working as a senior research intern at a mental health non-profit, assisting with operational transitions and strategic planning for the future of the organization. In September, I will begin my second master’s degree in public policy at the University of Calgary. After graduation, my career goal is to contribute to mental health and disability policy in Alberta, ideally in a policy analysis or research role for the provincial government.