Allyship and solidarity, not therapy, in child and youth mental health: Lessons from a participatory action research project with psychiatrized youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While globally advances have been made to recognize children as social actors in their own right, for psychiatrized young people their experiences of distress are often seen as a limitation and thus used as a justification for denying their meaningful participation in matters of concern to their lives. However, what would it mean if ‘mental illness’ was not seen as a ‘limitation’, but rather as an ‘epistemological position’ from which the social world is experienced, understood and acted upon? What would it mean if our theories about ‘distress’ and ‘helping’ were premised on the subjugated knowledges of psychiatrized children and youth? The consumer/survivor-led research movement has made significant gains in answering these questions for the adult, but not necessarily for the child and youth mental health field. The purpose of this article is to critically examine the significance of psychiatrized young people setting and executing their own research and, ultimately, practice agendas. Presented are the outcomes of an evaluation of a participatory action research project examining the stigma of mental illness conducted with seven psychiatrized youth, 14 to 17 years old. The outcomes suggest our roles as practitioners and researchers need to shift from being ‘agents’ working on behalf of to ‘allies’ working in solidarity with young people to change the social conditions of their marginalization. The article concludes with the limits of consumer/survivor-led research for addressing adultism and, instead, ends with a call for decolonizing children’s mental health.
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 | 0.059 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".