DCC Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean to create psychiatric knowledge?
Marx and Engels observed that “the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it”. In psychiatry, a small number of people control the production of research and therefore control the knowledge about psychiatry that is produced, funded, and used to develop interventions. Those who create psychiatric knowledge are rarely the same people whose lives and opportunities (e.g. related to support, liberty, insurance, etc) are shaped by such knowledge. We have seen throughout history that, despite good intentions, this often leads to oppression, exploitation, and significant harms to those who are the subjects of and subjected to such knowledge. This is especially the case for those who are multiply marginalized.
Why include those impacted by such knowledge in its production?
Including those who are directly impacted by psychiatric knowledge in its production is a crucial intervention if we hope to develop research and interventions that will improve the lives of those diagnosed within this domain. As health research becomes increasingly democratic, growing evidence suggests that research led by or informed by mental health service users is often more successful, more relevant, and more efficient (e.g. by identifying relevant outcome measures, by supporting recruitment, by asking novel questions). This means that inviting user/survivor researchers to your conference and collaborating with them is likely to make your research better and the conversations you’re having at your event more informed.
Crucially, however, impact is not the only reason to invite those with lived experience. Service users should be invited because they have a right to be there and to be part of conversations about the development of knowledge that directly impacts them and their wellbeing. Holding an event about mental health that fails to include service users is to make a statement of exclusion, suggesting that the conversation can and should take place about, and without the contributions of, those with lived experience.
Additionally, failing to include those impacted by psychiatric knowledge in meetings about such knowledge risks recreating the status quo. To fail to include those with lived experience at such meetings can reaffirm the problematic dynamic in which knowledge is created about and without, dissuading those who do not see anyone like them represented from joining the ranks of researchers.
Why is it important to include BIPOC voices?
People who belong to racialized groups and also have lived experience of distress experience the intersection of these two identities in a way that is unique. BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) with a psychiatric diagnosis are over-represented in care, more likely to be perceived as dangerous, more likely to experience forced treatment, and more likely to be killed by the police during a wellness check. In the past, psychiatric categories have been used as tools of oppression against African Americans (e.g. Drapetomania) and some argue that they continue to be today (see Metzl, Liebert).
Including people with such intersecting identities is crucial if we want to prevent such harms from being repeated and reduce the violence and treatment disparities that BIPOC are subjected to. This also means working against significant barriers to research involvement that exist for racialized groups.
What other forms of diversity are worth thinking about when organizing events?
Coercive or involuntary treatment is also more common for those experiencing distress who are poor or street involved, so it is essential to consider the way that psychiatric services can be experienced by those with less resources, which in practice, can mean less choice and less agency.
Distress also looks different and is experienced differently by people around the world. Assumptions about the universal nature of psychiatric knowledge produced in wealthy nations have had a significant impact on those in the Global South, where frameworks and treatments have been exported. Including diverse voices and experiences from around the world can help to counteract these colonial processes.
Marx and Engels observed that “the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it”. In psychiatry, a small number of people control the production of research and therefore control the knowledge about psychiatry that is produced, funded, and used to develop interventions. Those who create psychiatric knowledge are rarely the same people whose lives and opportunities (e.g. related to support, liberty, insurance, etc) are shaped by such knowledge. We have seen throughout history that, despite good intentions, this often leads to oppression, exploitation, and significant harms to those who are the subjects of and subjected to such knowledge. This is especially the case for those who are multiply marginalized.
Why include those impacted by such knowledge in its production?
Including those who are directly impacted by psychiatric knowledge in its production is a crucial intervention if we hope to develop research and interventions that will improve the lives of those diagnosed within this domain. As health research becomes increasingly democratic, growing evidence suggests that research led by or informed by mental health service users is often more successful, more relevant, and more efficient (e.g. by identifying relevant outcome measures, by supporting recruitment, by asking novel questions). This means that inviting user/survivor researchers to your conference and collaborating with them is likely to make your research better and the conversations you’re having at your event more informed.
Crucially, however, impact is not the only reason to invite those with lived experience. Service users should be invited because they have a right to be there and to be part of conversations about the development of knowledge that directly impacts them and their wellbeing. Holding an event about mental health that fails to include service users is to make a statement of exclusion, suggesting that the conversation can and should take place about, and without the contributions of, those with lived experience.
Additionally, failing to include those impacted by psychiatric knowledge in meetings about such knowledge risks recreating the status quo. To fail to include those with lived experience at such meetings can reaffirm the problematic dynamic in which knowledge is created about and without, dissuading those who do not see anyone like them represented from joining the ranks of researchers.
Why is it important to include BIPOC voices?
People who belong to racialized groups and also have lived experience of distress experience the intersection of these two identities in a way that is unique. BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) with a psychiatric diagnosis are over-represented in care, more likely to be perceived as dangerous, more likely to experience forced treatment, and more likely to be killed by the police during a wellness check. In the past, psychiatric categories have been used as tools of oppression against African Americans (e.g. Drapetomania) and some argue that they continue to be today (see Metzl, Liebert).
Including people with such intersecting identities is crucial if we want to prevent such harms from being repeated and reduce the violence and treatment disparities that BIPOC are subjected to. This also means working against significant barriers to research involvement that exist for racialized groups.
What other forms of diversity are worth thinking about when organizing events?
Coercive or involuntary treatment is also more common for those experiencing distress who are poor or street involved, so it is essential to consider the way that psychiatric services can be experienced by those with less resources, which in practice, can mean less choice and less agency.
Distress also looks different and is experienced differently by people around the world. Assumptions about the universal nature of psychiatric knowledge produced in wealthy nations have had a significant impact on those in the Global South, where frameworks and treatments have been exported. Including diverse voices and experiences from around the world can help to counteract these colonial processes.
