The meaning of fighting and hiding for persons diagnosed with mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose/aims Canada’s first national mental health strategy requires a transformation away from a singular focus on symptom reduction towards personal recovery: supporting individuals in exercising self-determination, participating in meaningful occupations and relationships, and living satisfying and hopeful lives. The implementation of recovery-oriented care, however, faces two inter-related knowledge gaps that may be addressed by research: (1) how persons diagnosed with mental illness enact their well-being in the context of their everyday lives; and (2) how to differentiate the conceptualization of personal recovery from how it is experienced distinctively by every person. In this study, I aim to address these associated knowledge gaps by exploring what is revealed as meaningful for individuals diagnosed with mental illness in their first-person accounts of being with and being apart from others, and discussing what these accounts may add to generally understood conceptions of personal recovery such as connectedness (Leamy, Bird, Le Boutillier, Williams, & Slade, 2011).\nMethods Using a philosophical hermeneutics approach of entering into what is strange and unfamiliar in a text, and of reflecting critically on the choices made during the interpretive process itself (Davey, 2006, pp.1-36), I analyzed and interpreted the collective narrative of five adult participants diagnosed with mental illness. Their collective narrative was generated during a two-hour long focus group that took place as part of a larger participatory action research study focussed on transforming mental health services at an urban hospital towards recovery-oriented care (Park et al. 2014). During these focus groups, participants were asked to tell stories regarding an aspect of recovery (e.g. “Could you please tell us a story related to hope?”) and about significant experiences in their everyday lives (e.g. “Can you tell us about a time that stands out in your memory?”).\nResults and implications \nThe philosophical hermeneutics analysis revealed how activities, such as “fighting” and “hiding”, were modes of action that supported the participants’ well-being and empowerment. These actions reveal the agency and intentionality of the participants when negotiating being with or being apart from others. Outlining how I operationalized a philosophical hermeneutics approach, I will also discuss the implications of this hiding and fighting for widening present conceptions of what it may mean to be a “socially-occupied being” (Lawlor, 2003) and how everyday actions are modes of being to both connect to others as well as maintain what Corin (1998) called “positive withdrawal”.\nKeywords\nSociality, philosophical hermeneutics, personal recovery\nDiscussion Questions \n(1) How could current conceptions of the meaningful activities of personal recovery be widened and nuanced?\n(2) What are the uses and value of first-person perspectives? For whom? For which purposes? In which settings?\n(3) How may occupational scientists and researchers uncover and be responsive to unexpected, unacknowledged, or overlooked actions that people diagnosed with mental illness take for their well-being?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".