Future studies, mental health and the question of citizenship

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the value of utilising future studies to explore citizenship for people with mental health challenges. Design/methodology/approach This paper critiques the discipline of future studies and considers it in the context of the citizenship and mental health literature. It explores how future studies can be utilised to promote marginalised voices, such as those of people with mental health challenges. Findings Technology is leading to rapid change in society including what it means to be a citizen (Isin and Nielsen, 2008; Isin and Ruppert, 2015). Whilst citizenship has been promoted within mental health for a long time, change has been slow (Rowe and Davidson, 2016). In order to create inclusive opportunities for people with mental health challenges, any focus on citizenship in mental health needs to not only address the present time but to anticipate and influence future technological directions. Originality/value This paper is original in bringing together mental health and the future impact on society of new technologies. It stands to offer a new perspective to discussions on citizenship.

“The biggest barrier is to inclusion itself”: the experience of citizenship for adults with mental health problems

“…Only by acknowledging and understanding such barriers can researchers, policy-makers and health and social care professionals begin to identify ways to confront them. A citizenship approach which facilitates social acceptance, social inclusion, a sense of belonging and fair distribution of resources (Hamer et al, 2019;Morgan et al 2020;Anonymous et al, 2015), has the potential to reduce such barriers and increase access to full participation for those who have experienced marginalisation. Future work transferring principles and practices of citizenship to different professional contexts in the field of mental health would benefit from longitudinal evaluation and socio-cultural comparison.…”

“…Citizenship has been promoted within mental health for several decades (Anonymous & Davidson, 2016), however, its application in the field of mental health policy and practice is relatively novel and under-explored (Morgan et al, 2020;Anonymous et al, 2019). Inclusion of the voices of people who experience mental health problems (MHPs) are often absent in ongoing discourses about citizenship (Vervliet et al, 2019).…”

The development and protocol for testing a co-created digital intervention (Sentinel) to improve mental wellbeing and help manage and prevent trauma in first responders

“…Technology is leading to rapid change in the way mental health interventions are increasingly being delivered. In order to create inclusive opportunities for who experience mental health challenges , associated with trauma, any DI development needs to not only address the present time but to anticipate and influence future technological directions (Morgan et al, 2020). In order to prevent current inequalities and biases becoming "hard wired" into DIs and algorithms for AI (Mohamed et al 2020), it is essential that people with lived experiences of mental health challenges are involved in the co-production of such technologies.…”

Developing and establishing the psychometric properties of the Strathclyde Citizenship Measure: A new measure for health and social care practice and research

“…Research on the concept of citizenship has been increasing (Davidson, 2016 ; Quinn et al., 2020 ), however, the application of citizenship across health and social care settings is relatively novel (MacIntyre et al., 2021 ; Morgan et al., 2020 ). While diverse conceptualisations of citizenship exist (Beresford & Croft, 2016 ; Dean, 2004 ; Isin & Nielsen, 2008 ; Lister, 1998 ; Marshall, 1964 ; Yuval‐Davis, 2007 ), citizenship theory and practice has traditionally focused on securing the rights of the individual within society.…”