Depending on which kind of philosophy of science we espouse, health psychology can be a relatively concrete or relatively abstract activity. Estacio, I suggest, prioritizes the concrete, by foregrounding real social phenomena. I argue that prioritizing the concrete has two particular benefits: it increases the social relevance of health psychology, and it increases the validity of our analyses, by ensuring that they are close to reality. To further the pursuit of the concrete, I suggest that critical health psychology is in particular need of exemplars of critical health psychology in action, rather than reflexive commentary on critical health psychology itself.
Campbell, C., Nair, Y., & Maimane, S. (2007). Building contexts that support effective community responses to HIV/AIDS: A South African case study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3), 347-363.
2.
Campbell, C., Nair, Y., Maimane, S., Sibiya, Z., & Gibbs, A. (revisions in progress). Dissemination as intervention: Building local AIDS competence through the report-back of research findings to a deep rural community in South Africa. Antipode.
3.
Chaiklin, S. (1996). Understanding the social scientific practice of understanding practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 377-402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Cornish, F. (2004). Making `context' concrete: A dialogical approach to the society-health relation. Journal of Health Psychology , 9(2), 281-294.
5.
Cornish, F., & Gillespie, A. (forthcoming). A pragmatist approach to the problem of knowledge in health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology.
6.
Crossley, M.L. (2001). Rethinking health psychology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
7.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.
8.
Hepworth, J. (2006). The emergence of critical health psychology: Can it contribute to promoting public health? Journal of Health Psychology, 11(3), 331-341.
9.
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking . New York: Longman Green & Co.
10.
MacLachlan, M. (2006). Towards a global health contribution for critical health psychology: Some comments on Hepworth. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(3), 361-365.
11.
Marks, D.F. (2002). Freedom, responsibility and power: Contrasting approaches to health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology , 7(1), 5-19.
12.
Marx, K. (1845). Theses on Feuerbach. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm (accessed 9 January 2009).
13.
Mead, G.H. (1936). Movements of thought in the nineteenth century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Prilleltensky, I. (2003). Critical health psychology needs psychopolitical validity. Health Psychology Update, 12(3), 2-11.
15.
Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
16.
Rose, D. (2008). Madness strikes back. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18(6), 638-644.
17.
Rose, D., Wykes, T., Leese, M., Bindman, J., & Fleischmann, P. (2003). Patients' perspectives on electroconvulsive therapy: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 326, 1363-1366.
18.
Stam, H.J. (2000). Theorizing health and illness: Functionalism, subjectivity and reflexivity. Journal of Health Psychology , 5(3), 273-283.
19.
Tolman, C.W. (1999). Society versus context in individual development: Does theory make a difference? In Y. Engeström , R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 70-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Vinck, J., & Meganck, J. (2006). Do we need critical health psychology or rather critical health psychologists? Journal of Health Psychology , 11(3), 391-393.
