This research explores areas of contention in the mental heath field in Australia through a
qualitative analysis of voices and practices that can broadly be seen as talking with and
talking back to psychiatry. The thesis is informed by key shifts in thinking that underpin
postpsychiatry and analyses a set of materials through an interpretive lens of reading
psychiatry against the grain (Bracken & Thomas, 2005; Lewis, 2006). In particular, it
examines a failed ethics application to conduct research with people diagnosed with a mental
illness, an anti-stigma campaign, the practices of some prominent mental health organisations
in Australia, a conversation with two members of an emerging consumer/survivor network in
Australia, and a television documentary and online discussion forum about an antidepressant
medication. The research draws from discourse analytic methods and concepts from social
movement framing research to identify factors shaping conformity and resistance to
psychiatric doxa in the Australian mental health field.
The research identifies the discursive repertoires that characterise the mental health field as a
"game" in which competing perspectives vie for recognition. In relation to research ethics
committees, the thesis argues that deference to clinical expertise is a potential barrier to
cultural studies of psychiatry and a more inclusive agenda in mental heath research and
practice. Some practices for ethics committees to consider when reviewing research that
involves people who may have been diagnosed with a mental illness are proposed. The
research also identifies problematic features of anti-stigma campaigns that direct their efforts
toward protecting and promoting the discourse of biomedical psychiatry. A critique of this
type of campaign is offered in relation to perspectives from postpsychiatry and social
constructionism. On the basis of this research, it is argued that organisations that champion
"mental health literacy" are limited in their ability to give voice to the goals and priorities of
those who are calling for a more open, reflexive and democratic debate in mental health. The
central argument of this thesis is that elevating first-person and postpsychiatry perspectives is
necessary in order to interrogate and address the dominance of the medical model in
psychiatry and its consequences.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/201570 |
| Date | January 2007 |
| Creators | Holland, Kate E, n/a |
| Publisher | University of Canberra. Communication |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | ), Copyright Kate E Holland |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds