Abstract

Background: In the field of mental health research, collaborative and participatory approaches in which mental health service users actively contribute to academic knowledge production are gaining momentum. However, concrete examples in scientific literature that would detail how collaborative research projects are actually organized, and how they deal with the inherent challenges are rare. This paper provides an in-depth description of a three-year collaborative project that took place in the wider context of a mixed-method process evaluation of innovative models of psychiatric care in Germany.Methods: The in-depth description we provide here draws on a vast body of notes and records that originated from numerous meetings and sessions. The research group continuously and systematically reflected on their collaboration itself using the interpretative method of “interactive interviewing,” which included that also the personal memories of the researchers were collectively re-discussed before and during the process of writing. Our concrete experiences as a group were then contextualized with and analyzed in the light of more general challenges that are central to collaborative research in general.Results: Performing collaborative research requires unconventional thinking and improvisation in order to find creative solutions for practical problems and to overcome the structural obstacles inherent to the process of academic knowledge production. An atmosphere of mutual trust and respect within the group is crucial, and continuous self-reflection or supervision can be largely beneficial. Challenges mainly originate from the vast heterogeneity that characterizes the researchers, usually including large differences in economic, cultural, and social capital.Conclusion: Collaborative research in the field of psychiatry is designed to bring together researchers with widely diverse backgrounds. Emerging conflicts are important parts of knowledge production but also exceptional opportunities to negotiate research ethics, and potential vehicles for personal growth and transformation. Success or failure of collaborative research largely depends on how divergences and conflicts are articulated, mediated, and reflected. This also holds true in the light of the power asymmetries within the research team and the structural power inherent to the engines of academic knowledge production.

Highlights

  • There is a growing emphasis in research policy on the need for health service users to actively contribute to academic knowledge production [1]

  • The overall goal of PsychCare consisted of the comparative evaluation of the efficacy and efficiency of psychiatric hospitals which had implemented new “Flexible and Integrative Treatment (FIT)” strategies

  • Rather descriptive research projects based on FIT64b models, which showed overall positive results [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is a growing emphasis in research policy on the need for health service users to actively contribute to academic knowledge production [1]. The different contributors usually diverge in economic, cultural, and social capital as well as in perspectives and positions, which can challenge the realization of these kinds of projects [9, 10] Facing these difficulties, the scarcity of literature on how to concretely realize collaborative and participatory research is striking [7]. The few and highly valued empirical studies in this field mostly focus on methodological aspects of the collaboration, lacking insights on how the people involved concretely worked together This information is usually condensed to either the confines of the method section or relegated to the gray literature, something that may happen due to the high barriers for academic publication [6, 11].

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call