Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 8/2018

Open Access 01-08-2018 | Review

Participatory research: real or imagined

Author: Diana Rose

Published in: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology | Issue 8/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Participatory research has as a central tenet that power relations between researcher and researched be reduced. In the last 20 years, a substantial literature has demonstrated the difficulties inherent in this as well as the troublesome nature of certain central concepts.

Aims

(1) To describe and illustrate a new form of participatory research where the researchers share at least something with the participants in the research. That is, all are users of mental health services. (2) To reflect on the novel form of participatory research in terms of whether it shares, mitigates or avoids some of the difficulties of more traditional forms and to pose the question: what is a mental health community?

Results

The model described is new in that the researchers have a different status than in conventional participatory research. But it is illuminated by and itself illuminates issues of power relations in research and difficulties in reducing that; gatekeepers and the exclusion of crucial groups of service users; the confusion of demographic representativeness with the silencing of marginalized perspectives; coming out of the academic space and the shifting issue of what counts as ‘communities’ in mental health.

Conclusion

The examples given are moderate in scale and relevant to social psychiatry. Yet they may change methods and the definition of participatory research and at the same time be vitiated by but also illuminate dilemmas already identified in the literature albeit in different formations.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Dixon-Woods M et al (2006) Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 6(1):35CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dixon-Woods M et al (2006) Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 6(1):35CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Fitzpatrick R et al (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Asses 2(14):1–7 Fitzpatrick R et al (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Asses 2(14):1–7
4.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Taylor R (1997) Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ Br Med J 315(7110):740CrossRef Greenhalgh T, Taylor R (1997) Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). BMJ Br Med J 315(7110):740CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Hurwitz B (1999) Narrative based medicine: why study narrative? BMJ Br Med J 318(7175):48CrossRef Greenhalgh T, Hurwitz B (1999) Narrative based medicine: why study narrative? BMJ Br Med J 318(7175):48CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Mason R, Boutilier M (1996) The challenge of genuine power sharing in participatory research: the gap between theory and practice. Can J Commun Ment Health 15(2):145–152CrossRefPubMed Mason R, Boutilier M (1996) The challenge of genuine power sharing in participatory research: the gap between theory and practice. Can J Commun Ment Health 15(2):145–152CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Madden M, Speed E (2017) Beware zombies and unicorns: toward critical patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context. Front Sociol 2:7CrossRef Madden M, Speed E (2017) Beware zombies and unicorns: toward critical patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context. Front Sociol 2:7CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Henkel H et al (2001) Participation as spiritual duty; empowerment as secular subjection. In: Cooke KUB (ed) Editor In participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books, London, pp 168–184 Henkel H et al (2001) Participation as spiritual duty; empowerment as secular subjection. In: Cooke KUB (ed) Editor In participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books, London, pp 168–184
9.
go back to reference Maguire P (2001) Uneven ground: Feminisms and action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. SAGE, London, pp 59–69 Maguire P (2001) Uneven ground: Feminisms and action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. SAGE, London, pp 59–69
10.
go back to reference Mosavel M et al (2005) Community-based participatory research (CBPR) in South Africa: engaging multiple constituents to shape the research question. Soc Sci Med 61(12):2577–2587CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mosavel M et al (2005) Community-based participatory research (CBPR) in South Africa: engaging multiple constituents to shape the research question. Soc Sci Med 61(12):2577–2587CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Choudry A, Kapoor D (2010) Learning from the ground up: global perspectives on social movements and knowledge production. Learning from the ground up. Springer, pp 1–13 Choudry A, Kapoor D (2010) Learning from the ground up: global perspectives on social movements and knowledge production. Learning from the ground up. Springer, pp 1–13
12.
go back to reference Campbell JR (2001) Participatory rural appraisal as qualitative research: distinguishing methodological issues from participatory claims. Hum Org 60(4):380–389CrossRef Campbell JR (2001) Participatory rural appraisal as qualitative research: distinguishing methodological issues from participatory claims. Hum Org 60(4):380–389CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Rose D et al (2011) A model for developing outcome measures from the perspectives of mental health service users. Int Rev Psychiatr 23(1):41–46CrossRef Rose D et al (2011) A model for developing outcome measures from the perspectives of mental health service users. Int Rev Psychiatr 23(1):41–46CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Rose D et al (2009) Developing a user-generated measure of continuity of care: Brief report. Acta Psychiatr Scand 119(4):320–324CrossRefPubMed Rose D et al (2009) Developing a user-generated measure of continuity of care: Brief report. Acta Psychiatr Scand 119(4):320–324CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Greenwood KE et al (2009) CHoice of outcome in Cbt for psychosEs (CHOICE): The development of a new service user—led outcome measure of CBT for psychosis. Schizophr Bull 36(1):126–135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Greenwood KE et al (2009) CHoice of outcome in Cbt for psychosEs (CHOICE): The development of a new service user—led outcome measure of CBT for psychosis. Schizophr Bull 36(1):126–135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Evans J et al (2012) VOICE: Developing a new measure of service users’ perceptions of inpatient care, using a participatory methodology. J Ment Health 21(1):57–71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Evans J et al (2012) VOICE: Developing a new measure of service users’ perceptions of inpatient care, using a participatory methodology. J Ment Health 21(1):57–71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Wykes T et al (2017) What side effects are problematic for patients prescribed antipsychotic medication? The Maudsley Side Effects (MSE) measure for antipsychotic medication. Psychol Med 47(13):2369–2378CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wykes T et al (2017) What side effects are problematic for patients prescribed antipsychotic medication? The Maudsley Side Effects (MSE) measure for antipsychotic medication. Psychol Med 47(13):2369–2378CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Oppenheim AN (2000) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Bloomsbury Publishing, London Oppenheim AN (2000) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Bloomsbury Publishing, London
20.
go back to reference Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R (2006) Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12(5):559–568CrossRefPubMed Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R (2006) Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12(5):559–568CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R (2005) The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med 60(4):833–843CrossRefPubMed Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R (2005) The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med 60(4):833–843CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Schwandt TA, Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2007) Judging interpretations: but is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. N Dir Eval 114:11–25CrossRef Schwandt TA, Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2007) Judging interpretations: but is it rigorous? trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. N Dir Eval 114:11–25CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Crawford MJ et al (2011) Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users. J Ment Health 20(4):336–346CrossRefPubMed Crawford MJ et al (2011) Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users. J Ment Health 20(4):336–346CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Kline P (2015) A handbook of test construction (psychology revivals): introduction to psychometric design. Routledge, LondonCrossRef Kline P (2015) A handbook of test construction (psychology revivals): introduction to psychometric design. Routledge, LondonCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Thompson B (2004) Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association, Washington DCCrossRef Thompson B (2004) Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association, Washington DCCrossRef
27.
28.
go back to reference Series L (2015) Relationships, autonomy and legal capacity: Mental capacity and support paradigms. Int J Law Psychiatr 40:80–91CrossRef Series L (2015) Relationships, autonomy and legal capacity: Mental capacity and support paradigms. Int J Law Psychiatr 40:80–91CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Fernando S, Keating F (2008) Mental health in a multi-ethnic society: a multidisciplinary handbook. Routledge, LondonCrossRef Fernando S, Keating F (2008) Mental health in a multi-ethnic society: a multidisciplinary handbook. Routledge, LondonCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Jackson JS et al (2004) The National Survey of American Life: a study of racial, ethnic and cultural influences on mental disorders and mental health. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 13(4):196–207CrossRefPubMed Jackson JS et al (2004) The National Survey of American Life: a study of racial, ethnic and cultural influences on mental disorders and mental health. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 13(4):196–207CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Faulkner A (2004) The ethics of survivor research: Guidelines for the ethical conduct of research carried out by mental health service users and survivors. Policy Press, Bristol Faulkner A (2004) The ethics of survivor research: Guidelines for the ethical conduct of research carried out by mental health service users and survivors. Policy Press, Bristol
33.
go back to reference Voronka J (2017) Turning mad knowledge into affective labor: the case of the peer support worker. Am Q 69(2):333–338CrossRef Voronka J (2017) Turning mad knowledge into affective labor: the case of the peer support worker. Am Q 69(2):333–338CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Kalathil J et al (2011) Recovery and resilience: African, African-Caribbean and South Asian women’s narratives of recovering from mental distress. Mental Health Foundation, London Kalathil J et al (2011) Recovery and resilience: African, African-Caribbean and South Asian women’s narratives of recovering from mental distress. Mental Health Foundation, London
35.
go back to reference Neale J et al (2014) How should we measure addiction recovery? Analysis of service provider perspectives using online Delphi groups. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 21(4):310–323CrossRef Neale J et al (2014) How should we measure addiction recovery? Analysis of service provider perspectives using online Delphi groups. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 21(4):310–323CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Neale J et al (2015) “You’re all going to hate the word ‘recovery’by the end of this”: Service users’ views of measuring addiction recovery. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 22(1):26–34CrossRef Neale J et al (2015) “You’re all going to hate the word ‘recovery’by the end of this”: Service users’ views of measuring addiction recovery. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 22(1):26–34CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Isaksson A et al (2017) Coping with stigma and discrimination: evidence from mental health service users in England. Epidemiol Psychiatric Sci 2:1–12CrossRef Isaksson A et al (2017) Coping with stigma and discrimination: evidence from mental health service users in England. Epidemiol Psychiatric Sci 2:1–12CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Hollingshead AB, Redlich FC (1958) Social class and mental illness: community study. Am J Sociol 64(2):191–192CrossRef Hollingshead AB, Redlich FC (1958) Social class and mental illness: community study. Am J Sociol 64(2):191–192CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Metzl JM (2010) The protest psychosis: How schizophrenia became a black disease. Beacon Press, Boston Metzl JM (2010) The protest psychosis: How schizophrenia became a black disease. Beacon Press, Boston
40.
go back to reference Sweeney A et al (2015) The role of fear in mental health service users’ experiences: a qualitative exploration. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 50(7):1079–1087CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sweeney A et al (2015) The role of fear in mental health service users’ experiences: a qualitative exploration. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 50(7):1079–1087CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Webber M et al (2014) Discrimination against people with severe mental illness and their access to social capital: findings from the Viewpoint survey. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 23(02):155–165CrossRefPubMed Webber M et al (2014) Discrimination against people with severe mental illness and their access to social capital: findings from the Viewpoint survey. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 23(02):155–165CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Perkins R et al (2012) Recovery Colleges Implementing Recovery Through Organisational Change. NHS Centre for Mental Health (online) Perkins R et al (2012) Recovery Colleges Implementing Recovery Through Organisational Change. NHS Centre for Mental Health (online)
43.
go back to reference Faulkner A, Kalathil K (2012) The freedom to be, the chance to dream: preserving user-led peer support in mental health. Together for Wellbeing, London Faulkner A, Kalathil K (2012) The freedom to be, the chance to dream: preserving user-led peer support in mental health. Together for Wellbeing, London
44.
go back to reference Campbell P, Rose D (2011) Action for change in the UK: thirty years of the user/survivor movement. In: Pilgrim D, Rogers A, Pescosolido B (eds) The SAGE handbook of mental health and illness. Sage, Los Angeles Campbell P, Rose D (2011) Action for change in the UK: thirty years of the user/survivor movement. In: Pilgrim D, Rogers A, Pescosolido B (eds) The SAGE handbook of mental health and illness. Sage, Los Angeles
Metadata
Title
Participatory research: real or imagined
Author
Diana Rose
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0933-7954
Electronic ISSN: 1433-9285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-1549-3

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 8/2018 Go to the issue