Lived Experience Narrative as Practice: Describing the Work of Community Mental Health Activists/Advocates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We interviewed 25 community mental health activists/advocates in Manitoba, Canada, in order to better understand and document their work. Research Design and Methods: The research project used two complementary methodologies: oral history and phenomenology. Participants were a convenience sample of individuals whose activism/advocacy was not restricted to a professional job or advocacy for one person. Each participant consented to a one-on-one audiotaped interview with a member of the research team. Eighteen of the 25 participants further consented to inclusion of their interview in the Oral History Centre at the University of Winnipeg (Canada); this data is part of the historical record and available for future research. The interview data from all 25 research participants were pooled for anonymous phenomenological thematic analysis. Results: Five overarching themes were identified: lived experience, personal narrative as practice, system change, social justice, and direct service. These themes are connected: lived experience is translated into personal narrative as a form of practice used to achieve system change, social justice, and to provide direct service. Conclusions: Not only is personal narrative a valid epistemology, personal narrative is a practice; it is used in unique, purposeful, and varied ways to carry out a wide range of activities for the social good. The results of this research cannot be generalized to other mental health activists/advocates in other geographic locations but can be built upon in future research to better understand the mechanisms and processes by which personal narrative is used within activist/advocacy practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".