Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the findings from a detailed qualitative PhD study exploring experiences of stigma and discrimination in the lives of people in receipt of “mental health support” at two voluntary sector organisations in the North East of England.

Empirical material was collected during two periods of three-month long ethnographic periods of fieldwork from July to December of 2013 at two organisations providing support to their members who experience or have experienced mental distress. Along with field notes taken during and after periods of participant observation, the empirical material also included 30 interviews with staff (n=10) and members (n=20) across both organisations, along with a series of three focus groups at each organisation.

Staff at the organisations did not demonstrate obvious stigmatising or discriminatory attitudes or behaviours. However, they did attribute “self-stigma” to particular attitudes and behaviours of some of the members they support, referring to how they “made excuses”, “did not try” and/or “avoided situations”.

This paper argues that these attributions resulted from the misrecognition of members’ reactions to experiences of discrimination. The empirical material also suggests that these attributions of self-stigma may be indicative of the material limitations of the support environment, the consequent frustrations of well-intentioned staff, and, overall, as symptoms of neoliberalism. Drawing upon a Mad Studies approach and focussing on self-stigma and its attribution in contemporary mental health support, this paper provides a new perspective, which considers how stigma is linked to discrimination by rethinking what is thought of as “self-stigma”.

In 2015, there were many student protests regarding diversity that made many pay attention to the status of diversity on university campuses. However, well before these protests occurred there have been diversity officers at the forefront and behind the scenes doing change management work in the equity, diversity, and inclusion arena. While universities are entrenched systems of privilege that are difficult to change fundamentally, there is hope in that this work can and does make a difference for students, faculty, and staff. So, while universities continue to reflect society and its shortcomings, this work does matter.

In this chapter, I share my personal journey as a Chief Diversity Officer for nine years at public universities in North America, drawing upon that experience I share four areas I believe are vital to the success of any diversity effort. Since I have worked in the US and Canada, I bring to this chapter comparisons across borders that highlight the significance of particular practices, challenges of the twenty-first century and pitfalls along the way.

This article aims to focus on deaths by suicide in relation to UK welfare reform as a case study to question one of suicidology’s most dominant theories – the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (Joiner, 2005) and its influential ideas on “perceived burdensomeness” – as well as wider ideologies on suicide and mental health reflected in this approach.

This article draws on evidence from disabled people’s campaigning groups (primary sources) and research literature (secondary sources), which shows the negative psychological impact of burden discourse and how this shows up in people’s accounts of feeling suicidal, in suicide notes and in family accounts of those who have died by suicide. It uses this evidence to problematise the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (Joiner, 2005), specifically its ideas about “burden” as an individual misperception, and the assumption that suicide is always the outcome of mental health problems.

The findings highlight the systemic, intersectional and cumulative production of suicidality by governmental “welfare reform” in the UK, through positioning welfare claimants as “burdens” on society. They show that by locating the problem of burdensomeness in individual “misperceptions”, the Interpersonal Theory allows the government’s role in crafting stigmatisation and conditions of suicidality to be overlooked and to be reproduced.

The article raises urgent ethical questions about the application of approaches, such as the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide, to benefits-related suicides and calls for approaches to benefits-related harm and suicide to be rooted in social and disability justice.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the sanist microaggressions that peer workers face working in mental health and proposes ways in which peer workers and institutions may begin to challenge sanist practices within the sector.

The paper is written as a personal narrative. It explores a “moment” in the life of the author as a peer support worker.

Peer workers are often faced with sanist microaggressions on the job which can significantly affect peer workers’ capacity over time. Sharing our stories, identifying points of resistance and working collectively to challenge microaggressions are important to peer worker survival within the mental health system. Organisations that train or employ peer workers should be aware of sanist microaggressions and learn how to strategically respond to them.

The paper documents the experiences of the author. There is limited academic literature documenting peer worker experience of microaggressions.

Mental health is a sensitive topic to teach, as it’s difficult to judge anyone’s personal experiences of mental distress. Northumbria University has developed a programme explicitly for people with experience of mental distress who have an interest in being involved in research. This chapter discusses how it is important to be sensitive to the different experiences that students have and to develop reciprocal trust. It goes on to discuss the importance of creating a safe space for students to learn about mental health and research and provide some tips for doing so. These tips include being clear about individual biases and limitations, using personal stories and examples to connect with students, emphasising the importance of resilience, connecting students to resources and being open and flexible to offering additional support in a sensitive way. The chapter also discusses the challenges that students experiencing mental distress may face in academia, such as low self-esteem, imposter syndrome, and difficulties in accessing resources. The chapter provides some suggestions as to how educators can address these challenges such as providing students with opportunities to share personal experiences and learning to turn those experiences into assets. In addition, this chapter highlights the potential for students to shift their identity from ‘patient’ to ‘student’ to ‘researcher’ as they engage in the learning process. This shift in identity can be empowering and can help students to feel more in control of both their mental health and their futures. Overall, the chapter provides valuable insights into how to teach about mental health in an inclusive and sensitive way. The tips and suggestions provided can help educators to create safe and trusting environments for students to learn and address challenges with mental health often faced in academia.

The purpose of this paper is to critique Spandler and McKeown’s recent advocacy of a truth and reconciliation (T&R) process in psychiatry.

A critique of a recent paper in Mental Health Review Journal.

That Spandler and McKeown’s advocacy of a T&R process in psychiatry can be criticised from a number of inter-related practical, political and ethical perspectives.

The present critique contributes to the ongoing debate about the desirability of a T&R process in psychiatry.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how judges perceive High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (hfASDs) and the disorders’ effects on an offender's ability to formulate criminal intent and control behaviour.

Semi-structured interviews on topics related to offenders with hfASDs were conducted with 21 California Superior Court Judges. A coding scheme was developed and an iterative qualitative coding process was used for analysis.

Analysis yielded three major themes on how an hfASD diagnosis affects an offender's ability to regulate actions and criminal behaviour. Interviewed judges reported beliefs that hfASD offenders view the world in a different way and that much of their behaviour is not under their direct control. Judges reported these perceptions likely affect how they criminally process and make legal decisions regarding offenders with hfASDs.

The sample size was small and therefore no statistical significance can be drawn from results; findings cannot be applied to perceptions or experiences of the entire California Superior Court Judge population.

Past academic research reports that individuals with hfASDs that offend often do so because of specific symptoms associated with the disorder. This presents a complex dilemma for the criminal justice system regarding how best to understand the disorder and process these offenders. This study and its findings aim to shed light on issues judges encounter in determining these offenders’ responsibility and sentencing, in what ways this information might be integrated into judicial decision making, and areas where future research is needed.