Contending with the “adult gaze” in Mad Studies: Participatory research methods led by psychiatrized children and youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on mad studies as a field of scholarship, critical and feminist perspectives, and my experiences as a participatory action researcher, I consider the ethical and epistemological tensions associated with conducting research with children and youth positioned as “mental health service-users”. Specifically, I discuss the tensions associated with the “adult gaze”, our power and authority as adults over children and the ways in which “being an adult” influences and organizes the interpretations, and subsequent representations we can make of children and their lives. Essentially, I bring into question unexamined assumptions that engagement, inclusion, and participation are enough to result in an anti-oppressive shift in institutional power from adults to children given the complexity of adults’ social power over children and their lives. I conclude by proposing strategies for moving from participatory to child-led/youth-led research, that is, for the development of mental health theories and practices led by young people’s epistemologies – their knowledges and ways of knowing.
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 | 0.121 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| 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".