Search

Based on an in-depth discussion between us (six Black PhD and early career researchers), this work explores burgeoning Black feminist and digital media studies in Britain. Our article is rooted in dialogue about Black feminist digital culture, communications, aesthetics, joy, and our different yet interconnected scholarly experiences. We consider who and what shapes the work that we do, the way we approach it, and how it has developed in recent years. Specifically, our thoughts relate to five expansive and interlinked themes: 1. Digital Blackness, Twitter, and Community-Building, 2. Aesthetics, Archives, and Knowledge Production, 3. Pressures, Projections, and Power Dynamics, 4. Research on/as Black Feminist Joy and Pleasure, 5. The Politics of Research. By reflecting on our research and encounters in academia we provide an overview of key aspects of Black feminist and digital media studies in Britain, including how such scholarship is impacted by the specifics of where we are (and have been) located. In doing so, we share insights at the nexus of Black studies, digital studies, cultural studies, and feminist media studies that foreground possibilities, problems, playfulness, and pleasure that can be part of doing Black feminist and digital media studies work in Britain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate how curator goals influence the design of curation processes for collections of mental health lived experience narratives. The objectives were (1) to characterize the goals of a range of curators of existing collections, and (2) to identify specific working practices impacted by these goals. Research Design and Methods: Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of curators of collections of lived experience narratives. Thematic analysis was conducted. Goals and impacts on working practice were tabulated, and narrative summaries were constructed to describe the relation between the two. Results: Curators interviewed were from seven countries (Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Italy, UK, USA), and 60% had lived experience of mental health service usage. Participants discussed eight goals that inspired their work: fighting stigma, campaigning for change in service provision, educating about mental health and recovery, supporting others in their recovery journey, critiquing psychiatry, influencing policy, marketing health services, and reframing mental illness. These goals influenced how decisions were made about inclusion of narratives, editing of narrative content, withdrawal rights, and anonymization. Conclusions: Our work will support the development of curatorship as a professional practice by shaping training for curators, helping curators reflect on the outcomes they would like to achieve, and helping individuals planning a collection to reflect on their motivations. We argue that transparency is an essential orientation for curators. Transparency allows narrators to make an informed choice about donating a narrative. It allows policy makers to understand the influences on a collection and hence treat it as a source of collective evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Institutional injustice refers to structures that create disparities in resources, opportunities and representation. Marginalised people experience institutional injustice, inequalities and discrimination through intersecting personal characteristics and social circumstances. This study aimed to investigate sources of institutional injustice and their effects on marginalised people with experience of mental health problems. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 77 individuals from marginalised groups with experience of mental health problems, including psychosis, Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) populations, complex needs and lived experience as a work requirement. These were analysed inductively enabling sensitising concepts to emerge. Findings: Three processes of institutional injustice were identified: not being believed because of social status and personal backgrounds; not being heard where narratives did not align with dominant discourses, and not being acknowledged where aspects of identity were disregarded. Harmful outcomes included disengagement from formal institutions through fear and mistrust, tensions and reduced affiliation with informal institutions when trying to consolidate new ways of being, and damaging impacts on mental health and wellbeing through multiple oppression. Conclusions: Institutional injustice perpetuates health inequalities and marginalised status. Master status, arising from dominant discourses and heuristic bias, overshadow the narratives and experiences of marginalised people. Cultural competency has the potential to improve heuristic availability through social understandings of narrative and experience, whilst coproduction and narrative development through approaches such as communities of practice might offer meaningful avenues for authentic expression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mental health recovery narratives have been defined as first-person lived experience accounts of recovery from mental health problems which refer to events or actions over a period of time and which include elements of adversity or struggle, and also self-defined strengths, successes or survival. They are readily available in invariant recorded form, including text, audio or video. Previous studies have provided evidence that receiving recorded recovery narratives can provide benefits to recipients. This protocol describes three pragmatic trials that will be conducted by the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) study using the NEON Intervention, a web application that delivers recorded recovery narratives to its users. The aim of the NEON Trial is to understand whether receiving online recorded recovery narratives through the NEON Intervention benefits people with experience of psychosis. The aim of the NEON-O and NEON-C trials is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial on the use of the NEON Intervention with people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems and those who care for others experiencing mental health problems respectively.Methods: The NEON Trial will recruit 683 participants with experience of psychosis. The NEON-O Trial will recruit at least 100 participants with experience of non-psychosis mental health problems. The NEON-C Trial will recruit at least 100 participants with experience of caring for others who have experienced mental health problems. In all three trials, participants will be randomly allocated into one of two arms. Intervention arm participants will receive treatment as usual plus immediate access to the NEON Intervention for 1 year. Control arm participants will receive treatment as usual plus access to the NEON Intervention after 1 year. All participants will complete demographics and outcome measures at baseline, 1 week, 12 weeks and 52 weeks. For the NEON Trial, the primary outcome measure is the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life at 52 weeks, and secondary outcome measures are the CORE-10, Herth Hope Index, Mental Health Confidence Scale and Meaning in Life Questionnaire. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted using data collected through the EQ-5D-5 L and the Client Service Receipt Inventory.Discussion: NEON Trial analyses will establish both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NEON Intervention for people with experience of psychosis, and hence inform future clinical recommendations for this population.Trial Registration: All trials were prospectively registered with ISRCTN. NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837 . Registered on 13 August 2018. NEON-C Trial: ISRCTN76355273 . Registered on 9 January 2020. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153 . Registered on 9 January 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]