Mutuality as a method: advancing a social paradigm for global mental health through mutual learning
Mutuality as a method: advancing a social paradigm for global mental health through mutual learning
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00127-023-02493-1
复制
发表时间：
2023-07-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Burgess，Rochelle A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bemme，Dorte;Roberts，Tessa;Burgess，Rochelle A.
在全球精神卫生（GMH）中呼吁“相互性”，旨在跨越认知和权力差异更公平地产生知识。由于资金、召集和出版权仍然集中在全球北方的机构，GMH非殖民化的努力强调了相互学习而不是单向知识转移的必要性。本文反映了互惠作为一个概念和实践，产生可持续的关系，概念创新，并质疑如何认识的权力可以shared.MethodsWe借鉴的见解，从网上相互学习的过程中超过8个月之间的39个社区为基础的和学术合作者在24个国家工作。他们走到一起，以推进向GMH.ResultsOur理论的相互性的社会范式的转变强调，知识生产的过程和结果是不可分割的。相互学习需要一个开放的、迭代的、节奏较慢的过程，优先考虑信任，并对所有合作者的需求和批评做出反应。这导致了一种社会范式，要求GMH（1）从社区心理健康的赤字转向基于力量的观点，（2）在扩展过程中包括当地和经验知识，（3）直接资助社区组织，以及（4）挑战概念，如创伤和复原力，通过全球南方社区的生活经验的透镜。结论在GMH目前的体制安排下，只能不完美地实现相互性。我们提出了我们在相互学习方面部分成功的关键因素，并得出结论，挑战现有的结构性限制是至关重要的，以防止象征性地使用这个概念。
PurposeCalls for “mutuality” in global mental health (GMH) aim to produce knowledge more equitably across epistemic and power differences. With funding, convening, and publishing power still concentrated in institutions in the global North, efforts to decolonize GMH emphasize the need for mutual learning instead of unidirectional knowledge transfers. This article reflects on mutuality as a concept and practice that engenders sustainable relations, conceptual innovation, and queries how epistemic power can be shared.MethodsWe draw on insights from an online mutual learning process over 8 months between 39 community-based and academic collaborators working in 24 countries. They came together to advance the shift towards a social paradigm in GMH.ResultsOur theorization of mutuality emphasizes that the processes and outcomes of knowledge production are inextricable. Mutual learning required an open-ended, iterative, and slower paced process that prioritized trust and remained responsive to all collaborators’ needs and critiques. This resulted in a social paradigm that calls for GMH to (1) move from a deficit to a strength-based view of community mental health, (2) include local and experiential knowledge in scaling processes, (3) direct funding to community organizations, and (4) challenge concepts, such as trauma and resilience, through the lens of lived experience of communities in the global South.ConclusionUnder the current institutional arrangements in GMH, mutuality can only be imperfectly achieved. We present key ingredients of our partial success at mutual learning and conclude that challenging existing structural constraints is crucial to prevent a tokenistic use of the concept.