The main aims and objectives of this Ph.D. by publication are: • To analyse, explore and contextualise the psychiatric response to trauma and aetiological issues • To analyse and explore the management of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) • To critically analyse the wider historical, legal and political management of mental disorder. Five peer-reviewed publications from recent years are presented on the theme of psychiatric responses to traumatic events. Two papers focus on the aetiology, (where the Oxford definition of aetiology is the ‘cause, set of causes, or manner of causation of a condition’), of PTSD and therefore consider the injuries that cause PTSD and also potential vulnerability factors (Green & Griffiths, 2013). These papers contain a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods – examining characteristics such as psychological conceptions of risk in relation to illness duration within a case series for instance and a comparative statistical analysis of birth order in differing samples. Two papers consider modern aspects of the treatment of PTSD – including pharmacological and psychotherapeutic and difficulties and use a methodology of a structured review of the literature including analysis of the evidence base for trauma-focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) including Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT) (Green 2013, Green 2014). A final paper looks at admissions trends for PTSD and a range of other mental disorders and uses a statistical analysis of national data looking for emerging trends against a historical and political background of changes in the management of mental disorder (Green & Griffiths, 2014). These recent papers are set in context against older papers from a career which has spanned epidemiological research into risk factors for depression over six years, writings about psychopharmacology, and planned future research into birth order and domestic violence, and an editorial for the British Journal of General Practice (Green & Gowans, 2014) seeking to promote future epidemiological research into unmet mental health needs in the community. The papers can be viewed as being within the context of a continuum of research interests and publications (represented diagrammatically below in Figure One). In the narrative text I refer to this earlier work and also explain my plans for progress in terms of future research and publications, thus setting the work in this Ph.D. by publication in context within a continuing pattern of interests.

This study considers the history of trauma, both as a psychiatric concept and as a diagnosis, and its social and cultural representation from a transnational perspective after WWII. The intellectual evolution of trauma was determined by various medical, social and cultural variables, institutions, and people who wielded influence in the postwar world order as well as diverse local contexts. This thesis focuses on the globalisation and localisation of such concept and diagnosis shaped by international and local mental health experts at the World Health Organization and the National Taiwan University Hospital. Through the efforts of these experts, trauma not only became one of the most globally diffused psychiatric diagnoses, but also a hyperbole appropriated by Taiwanese psychiatrists to account for extreme forms of social suffering. Studies have criticised the universality and the Anglo-American-centred approach to the history of traumatic psychiatry. Scholars have also begun to explore transnational histories of psychiatry by systematically comparing or tracing the diffusion routes of psychiatric topics. Their methods of enquiry and problems solved, however, differ. My research analyses a disparate collection of evidence at the level of international organisations and from local aspects, allowing not only a critical reconsideration of trauma in the trend of global medicine, but also its reception, contestation and appropriation in the non-Western contexts. Guided by the works of medical historians, literary critics and cultural anthropologists, this project combines archival research with oral history interviews to challenge the existing historical accounts of trauma, and provide evidence of the limited capacity of globalised psychiatric norms and their reception and appropriation beyond the imagination of world citizenship. It argues that such scientific artefacts were not only produced through mutual reference between Eastern and Western experiences, but also measures of instrumental rationality employed by postwar internationalists to engineer their modernity in the Global South.