This article asks whether there is a discrepancy between the field of International Political Economy (IPE) as we know it from recent debates about its role, distinctiveness, and contribution compared to the experience of its practitioners on the ground? Intellectually IPE is needed more than ever to engage real world events but faces constraining institutional imperatives. We have two interrelated objectives related to this: (1) to assess the extent to which the patterns in recent interventions are replicated when you ask those who self-identify as IPE scholars in the UK (2) to appraise survey data on the reproduction of a particular community of practice within the field as it evolves intellectually and institutionally. Rather than imposing our interpretation of IPE through publications, citation practices, conference attendance, or textbook content we offer two distinct contributions. First, to report new empirical data on IPE as a ‘field of inquiry’ in UK universities; and, second, to develop a critical intervention on the indisciplined nature of IPE as a field of inquiry in the UK. We conclude that the widely acknowledged and long-standing fertile intellectual advantages of IPE's ‘open range’, unlimited intellectual borders and transgressive enquiry bring institutional disadvantages with them.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a highly effective treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Identifying, challenging and monitoring interpretations of intrusions is considered a key element of CBT for OCD but preliminary research suggests that treatment does not always include identification and modification of misinterpretations. The present investigation explored ‘OCD-expert’ and ‘non-OCD-expert’ clinicians’ views on key elements of CBT for OCD to determine whether identifying and modifying key interpretations were considered important in therapy and whether clinicians who do not have specific expertise in OCD found working with interpretations difficult. Study 1 used a qualitative approach to investigate OCD-expert and non-OCD-expert clinician's views on key elements of CBT for OCD. Study 2 used a questionnaire to investigate what non-OCD-expert clinicians viewed as important and difficult aspects of CBT for OCD. Study 1 results showed that OCD-expert and non-OCD-expert clinicians reported working with interpretations was a key element of CBT for OCD. However, OCD-expert clinicians linked interpretations more closely to a formulation and intervention plan and reported using more techniques and questionnaires when working with interpretations compared with non-OCD-expert clinicians. Study 2 results showed that non-OCD-expert clinicians rated interpretations as both important and difficult to work with but no more important or difficult than other key elements of CBT for OCD. OCD-expert and non-OCD-expert clinicians identify working with interpretations as a key element of CBT for OCD. Non-OCD-expert clinicians may benefit from additional training on formulation tools that help identify, monitor and challenge interpretations of intrusions.

This qualitative study investigated clinicians’ experiences and attitudes towards conducting mental health assessments over the telephone in an IAPT service. Nine participants completed a semi-structured questionnaire and data were evaluated using a Thematic Analysis model. Participants were largely apprehensive about telephone working, but many reported positive experiences. Telephone assessments were felt to be structured, focused and comprehensive, and therapeutic rapport was able to be established. However, concerns persisted around whether risk assessments could be adequately conducted over the telephone. Reports of spontaneous feedback from patients during telephone triage suggested that there was appreciation for this method of assessment and that it increased access to the service. Further research is needed to better understand what, for clinicians, contributes to acceptable assessment of complex and subjective situations, such as risk and feeling states, over the telephone.

Background: A large body of research has identified that many therapists do not use research to inform their practice, but few studies investigate the reasons behind this. Aims: The current study seeks to understand what sources therapists use to inform their practice and why they are chosen. Method: Thirty-three interviews with psychological therapists in the UK were undertaken. These were transcribed and analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Results: Two superordinate themes emerged. The former focused on the nature of evidence and the latter described why certain sources were used to make clinical decisions. When discussing evidence, participants felt that research studies, specifically Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), used unrepresentative samples. Therapists felt that research other than RCTs, particularly qualitative research, was important. Therapist specific factors were felt to be as, or more, important than the technique used to treat patients. When discussing the sources they used, therapists preferred to use their clinical experience or their patients’ experience to make clinical decisions. Theoretical or practical information was preferred to empirical research. The presentation of information was felt to be important to encourage the implementation of research, and therapists also felt tools such as outcome measures and manuals were too rigid to be useful. Finally, patients’ choice of treatment was felt to be important in treatment decisions. Conclusions: The views of therapists were heterogeneous, but this study highlighted some of the barriers to closing the gap between science and practice. This knowledge can be used to increase the translation of science into practice.

Prior research has shown that psychology-trained practitioners use homework assignments, but no prior research has sought to survey the clinical practice of other mental health professionals. Three hundred and thirty-three mental health professionals from counselling, medical, nursing, psychology, and social work training backgrounds were surveyed regarding their use of homework assignments in psychotherapy. The vast majority of the sample (83%) reported the use of homework assignments, and those practising cognitive-behavioural therapy indicated a greater frequency and degree of specificity in assigning homework. However, it was noteworthy that all theoretical and professional groups in the present study reported some use of homework assignments.