Author:
Rose Diana,Beresford Peter
Abstract
AbstractThis article begins by locating Patient and Public involvement ((PPI) historically and argues that ‘mental health’ was a special case. This movement held promise for service users in repositioning them as researchers as opposed to ‘subjects’. We argue, however, that ultimately it failed and was reduced to involved publics ‘tinkering at the edges’. In respect to this we reference institutions, hierarchies, organisations and the overall political climate. Ultimately, however, it failed at the level of knowledge itself in that t he underlying assumptions of conventional researchers, their aims and goals, clashed with those of the assumptions and aims of survivors. However, we argue that all is not lost, the mainstream itself is imploding and beneath the surface forms of distinctly survivor-led knowledge are emerging.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference58 articles.
1. CHMC and GPMH, Treated Well?....... 1988, London: GPMH.
2. Croft S, Beresford P. Whose empowerment? Equalizing the competing discourses in community care. In: Empowerment in community care. Springer; 1995. p. 59–73.
3. Van Teijlingen ER, et al. Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: comparative perspectives. Nova Publishers; 2004.
4. Harding SG. Feminism and methodology: social science issues. Indiana University Press; 1987.
5. Harding S. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is" strong objectivity?". The Centennial Review. 1992;36(3):437–70.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献