Evidence based psychological practice is the subject of debate in the Norwegian and international psychological academic fields. The debate concerns whether psychological practice can be standardized and the knowledge base for evidence based practice. The underlying assumptions for this, however, is insufficiently elaborated. We carried out a discourse analysis with the following research questions: 1. How is evidence based practice constructed? 2. What consequences can these constructions pose for psychologists? The Norwegian Psychological Association's policy statement on evidence based psychological practice was used as text material, as it defines evidence based practice and is a guiding document for Norwegian psychologists. Utilizing Parker's (1992) approach to Foucauldian discourse analysis, we identified four dicourses: Discourse of clinical autonomy, psy-complex discourse, positivistic discourse and neo-liberal discourse. Our analysis indicates that the psy-complex discourse, positivistic discourse and neo-liberal discourse in general seem to support and enable standardizing and governance of mental health services. Discourse of clinical autonomy allows for more independence and discretion for the clinician. We argue that evidence based practice is governing, and based on a homogenous knowledge base, at the expense of the psychologist's clinical autonomy. Our study proposes to broaden the field of knowledge regarding evidence based practice
