Participatory Spaces of Mental Health Service User Organizations in the Post-deinstitutional Era: Mapping Roles and Challenges

Abstract

By applying the concept of participatory spaces, this article maps and analyzes current research on mental health service user organizations (MHSUOs). We have analyzed research literature from 2006 to 2016 to examine how the role of and challenges facing MHSUOs are formulated in the post-deinstitutional era. The current situation is marked by MHSUOs parallel presence in invited, claimed and popular spaces for participation. The postdeinstitutional era is characterized by a shift in focus from gaining access to such participatory spaces, to critically examining the political opportunities available in these. We further argue that the dominance of psychiatry-specific spaces could prevent MHSUOs from fully exploring their potential for participation in broader social issues.

Participatory action research to pilot a model of mental health service user involvement in an Ethiopian rural primary healthcare setting: study protocol

“…Historically, mental health service-users have been excluded from participation in many mainstream social structures, disqualified as knowers and in knowledge production, because they are construed as irrational, unreasonable, incoherent, lacking in insight, deviant from standards of normalcy, unpredictable, unsafe to themselves and others, victims or deficient of mental capacity [33][34][35], and considered to have a flawed or spoiled identity [33,36]. Within the mental health system, knowledge gained through formal education is often more highly valued than the experiential knowledge of service-users gained through lived experiences [33,37,38].…”

Delivering experiential knowledge: repertoires of contention among Swedish mental health service user organisations

“…Practices central to service user movements such as experiential knowledge, recovery, and service user influence have furthermore been increasingly integrated into the Swedish mental health service system (Markström and Lindqvist 2015;Eriksson 2016;Karlsson 2011). This has made relationships between MHSUOs and public sector actors increasingly complex, where organisations can simultaneously assume the role of partners with, and opponents to, the mental health service system (Näslund, Markström, and Sjöström 2017). In light of the diversification of Swedish MHSUOs, as well as substantial changes to the mental health service system, it seems pertinent to examine the current state of the organisational field.…”

“…These different dimensions are explored building from Zald and McCarthy's (1994b) discussion of mobilisation of resources within fields of social movement organisations, but also from the concept 'repertoires of contention' (Tilly 1993), that describe social movement actors' protest methods and actions. Prior studies have mapped the research literature on MHSUOs (Näslund, Markström, and Sjöström 2017) and have looked at MHSUOs in other national contexts such as the USA (Tanenbaum 2012;Goldstrom et al 2006) and the UK (Crossley 2006). Through its focus on MHSUOs operating in the Swedish welfare context, this study contributes to furthering the understanding of the organisations' relationships with governmental actors as well as the internal dynamics within the field.…”

Incorporation and Individualization of Collective Voices: Public Service User Involvement and the User Movement’s Mobilization for Change

“…Such acts of social mobilization-where individuals or groups organize in civil society with the aim of changing politics or social conditions that they perceive as incorrect, unjust or discriminating-are often understood in terms of social movements (see Melucci 1989;Scott 1990;Tilly 1999;Della Porta and Diani 2006). Hence, the 'service user movement' (see Crossley 1999;Näslund et al 2017) can be understood as a social movement where users of various public services organize (predominantly through 'user organizations') with the aim to improve the situation for its target group. Alm Andreassen (2008) highlights that the practice of user involvement stages a specific kind of relationship between the public administration and the user movement-a relationship that is the centre of attention for this article.…”

“…Näslund et al 2017). From a social movement theory perspective, such mobilization is vital to a democratic society, because it allows critical scrutiny of governments and power elites (Tilly 1999: 257), enables the inclusion of excluded groups (Scott 1990: 150), promotes (or resists) social change (Della Porta and Diani 2006: 21) and endorses renewal of the political discourse (Eyerman and Jamison 1991).…”