Contending with the “adult gaze” in Mad Studies: Participatory research methods led by psychiatrized children and youth
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it