De-psychiatrizing our own research work

Who decides on time? Mad Time as a disruptor of normative research politics and practices

There is an increasing recognition of the epistemic injustice perpetrated against individuals deemed mad, leading to a push for the inclusion of their voices in research and academia. Nevertheless, despite being predominantly enacted as progressive, the inclusion of individuals deemed mad within research practices and spaces often fails to disrupt the ways in which methodology is conceptualized and practiced, contributing to the ongoing psychiatrization and exclusion of Mad practices and, more broadly, failing to produce alternatives to carceral responses to madness. In this article, I consider both the potential for methodology to produce temporal violence as well as the potential of Mad Time to disrupt normative and often sanist research practices. To achieve this, I weave together theorizing on Mad Time, post-qualitative inquiry, the experiences of peer support workers, and my own temporal conflicts in attempting to madden research within academia. I propose three ways in which Mad Time may provoke alternative methodological practices that move us closer to epistemic justice: rethinking the concept of data, embracing stumbling, circling, scrambling (becoming), and valuing variations in pace. I conclude by reflecting on the possible implications that thinking with Mad Time might hold for both research and activism, both within and outside of academia.

Embracing dissensus in lived experience research: the power of conflicting experiential knowledge

Lived experience is a crucial component in the development of innovative interventions and services in mental health care. To unlock the full potential of this valuable source of knowledge, it is essential to actively cultivate and understand it. A common concern, however, is the variability of perspectives, as individuals with lived experience might express opposing views on some issues. Building on our own journey as researchers with a combination of academic training and lived experience, we have developed an approach that treats dissensus not necessarily as a challenge to be resolved through consensus, but rather as a source of innovation. Our approach involves a two-step model. First, we identify the genuine points of disagreement or true negations between us. Next, we clarify the epistemic goal of the inquiry at hand. Based on this process, we determine whether the dissensus-often a rich, complex expression of variation-offers deeper insights, or if a more generalised, consensus-based message would be the most effective way to answer the inquiry. With this Personal View, we hope to inspire collaborators, both with and without lived experience, to engage rigorously and enthusiastically with dissensus, recognising its potential as a driver of innovation.

Maddening Post-Qualitative Inquiry: An Exercise in Collective (Mad) Theorising

Both post-qualitative inquiry and Mad methodologies sit on the fringes of qualitative health research, although their potential for creating new knowledges and practices is increasingly recognised. In this article, we explore the possibilities created by bringing these approaches together within research led by, or centring, mental health service users and survivors. We outline and reflect on a workshop undertaken with peer support workers to map affective intensities within mental health assemblages. We suggest the tensions between post-qualitative and Mad research approaches hold potential for mental health research, and qualitative health research more broadly, bringing together theory and the experiences of service users/survivors to think-feel-become otherwise in relation to health care, peer support, and activism.

Decolonising global mental health: The role of Mad Studies

In recent years, there has been a growing and high-profile movement for 'global mental health'. This has been framed in 'psych system' terms and had a particular focus on what has come to be called the 'Global South' or 'low and middle-income countries'. However, an emerging 'Mad Studies' new social movement has also developed as a key challenge to such globalising pressures. This development, however, has itself both being impeded by some of the disempowering foundations of a global mental health approach, as well as coming in for criticism for itself perpetuating some of the same problems as the latter. At the same time, we are also beginning to see it and related concepts like the UNCRPD being given new life and meaning by Global South activists as well as Global North activists. Given such contradictions and complexities, the aim of this paper is to offer an analysis and explore ways forward consistent with decolonizing global mental health and addressing madness and distress more helpfully globally, through a Mad Studies lens.

Inclusion as Assimilation, Integration, or Co-optation? A Post-Structural Analysis of Inclusion as Produced Through Mental Health Research on Peer Support

In the last 20 years, research on the inclusion of peer support within mental health settings has burgeoned, paralleling the broad adoption of service user inclusion within policy as a moral imperative and universally beneficial. Despite the seemingly progressive impetus behind inclusion, increasingly peer support workers talk of exhaustion working within mental health systems, the slow rate of change to oppressive values and practices, and ongoing experiences of workplace exclusion. Such experiences suggest differences in the way in which inclusion is produced across different stakeholder groups and contexts. In this article, we adopt Bacchi's 'what's the problem represented to be?' approach to identify how mental health research, often understood as an a-political activity, produces versions of inclusion. We argue current research predominantly produces inclusion as 'assimilation' and 'integration'. We use critical inclusion, mental health, and survivor scholarship to evaluate the effects these productions have for peer support and peer support workers, finding that both problematise peer support workers and those seeking support. We consider possibilities for more liberatory productions of inclusion, building on the notion of inclusion as 'co-optation'. Our analysis points to the need for researchers to engage with an uncomfortable reflexivity to enable more emancipatory possibilities regarding inclusion and peer support.