The practice of clinical psychology is not an homogeneous discipline. Within it there are a variety of approaches/schools.
In the US it's fairly common to think of mental illness as biological phenomena. It you go to the national NAMI site you will see mental illness described as brain disease and chemical imbalances within the brain. American advocacy groups for mental illness often push the idea that mental illness are brain-sicknesses and thereby real medical illnesses.
The new changes for research funding at NIMH focus money only on projects that intend to research that biological view. Challenging research revenue surely implies challenges to the credibility of those different points of view. That will generate observable conflict.
The psychologists who don't like the current state of the game are speaking out about it. I'm not a psychologist, and I'm not at all an expert in the rivalries and internal conflicts within clinical psychology. I know these 'schools' exist, and at a superficial level I know some of the differences between them.
The folks who assembled the new DSM are by and large members of the group within psychology that sees mental illness as being biologically based. One of the consequences of considering mental illness as biological pathology is that it can be targeted with pharmaceuticals. The use of pharmaceuticals for mental illness is quite controversial between the differing schools of psychology and among the general public.
I am not kidding when I say that there are therapists who believe that mental illness is a consequence of conscious and unconscious mind being misdirected by urges. Those who believe this defend it.
I am not kidding when I say that there are therapists who believe that virtually all mental illness can be solved by positive support from within a therapeutic alliance. Those who believe this defend it.
I am not kidding when I say that there are therapists who believe that mental illness is a consequence of structure and function of the brain. Those who believe this defend it.
These conflicts are long-standing and, as yet, unresolved within psychology. American graduate students of psychology are exposed to all of them and when they go into business, they pick and choose among those things which they feel work for them--an approach that's referred to as "eclectic" psychology.
When stories about conflicts in clinical psychology are encountered, it seems that they must be considered carefully and critically because they often represent only one of the therapeutic points of view. The authors of popular articles often do this superficially while emphasizing the sparks of the conflict rather than the nature of the steel and flint that are rubbing together.
= new reply since forum marked as read