IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v219y2018icp36-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Epistemic struggles: The role of advocacy in promoting epistemic justice and rights in mental health

Author

Listed:
  • Newbigging, Karen
  • Ridley, Julie

Abstract

Advocacy for people using health and social care services is widely promoted but its theoretical foundation is under-developed and its impact poorly conceptualised. This paper explores the liberatory potential of independent advocacy, using Fricker's concept of ‘epistemic injustice’ as a framework. People experiencing mental distress are particularly vulnerable to epistemic injustices as a consequence of deeply embedded social stigma resulting in a priori assumptions of irrationality and unreliability such that their knowledge is often discounted or downgraded. The mental health service user/survivor movement is at the forefront of validating personal experience and narrative to secure a different ontological and epistemological basis for mental distress. A foundational strand of this is advocacy to enable people to give voice to their experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Newbigging, Karen & Ridley, Julie, 2018. "Epistemic struggles: The role of advocacy in promoting epistemic justice and rights in mental health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 36-44.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:219:y:2018:i:c:p:36-44
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.10.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953618305690
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.10.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norvoll, Reidun & Pedersen, Reidar, 2016. "Exploring the views of people with mental health problems' on the concept of coercion: Towards a broader socio-ethical perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 204-211.
    2. Foley, Ronan & Platzer, Hazel, 2007. "Place and provision: Mapping mental health advocacy services in London," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 617-632, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bastidas-Bilbao, Hamer & Stergiopoulos, Vicky & van Kesteren, Mary Rose & Stewart, Donna Eileen & Cappe, Vivien & Gupta, Mona & Buchman, Daniel Z. & Simpson, Alexander I.F. & Castle, David & Campbell,, 2023. "Searching for relief from suffering: A patient-oriented qualitative study on medical assistance in dying for mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justyna Klingemann & Piotr Åšwitaj & Antonio Lasalvia & Stefan Priebe, 2022. "Behind the screen of voluntary psychiatric hospital admissions: A qualitative exploration of treatment pressures and informal coercion in experiences of patients in Italy, Poland and the United Kingdo," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 68(2), pages 457-464, March.
    2. Ross, Heather M. & Pine, Kathleen H. & Curran, Sarah & Augusta, Dawn, 2022. "Pathway mapping as a tool to address police use of force in behavioral health crisis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    3. Verbeke, Evi & Vanheule, Stijn & Cauwe, Joachim & Truijens, Femke & Froyen, Brenda, 2019. "Coercion and power in psychiatry: A qualitative study with ex-patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 89-96.
    4. Finlay, Susanna & Sandall, Jane, 2009. ""Someone's rooting for you": Continuity, advocacy and street-level bureaucracy in UK maternal healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1228-1235, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:219:y:2018:i:c:p:36-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.