— Case studies / Surveys

Objective: To investigate the potential to provide empirical evidence of the impact of service user researchers (SURs) on the research process.

Design: The study uses a range of secondary analyses of interview transcripts from a qualitative study of the experiences of psychiatric patients detained under the Mental Health Act (1983) to compare the way in which SURs and conventional university researchers (URs) conduct and analyse qualitative interviews.

Results: Analyses indicated some differences in the ways in which service user- and conventional URs conducted qualitative interviews. SURs were much more likely to code (analyse) interview transcripts in terms of interviewees' experiences and feelings, while conventional URs coded the same transcripts largely in terms of processes and procedures related to detention. The limitations of a secondary analysis based on small numbers of researchers are identified and discussed.

Conclusions: The study demonstrates the potential to develop a methodologically robust approach to evaluate empirically the impact of SURs on research process and findings, and is indicative of the potential benefits of collaborative research for informing evidence-based practice in mental health services.

Design/methodology/approach: Auto-ethnography is the research methodology used in this study; it combines a process of reflective writing and critical analysis which enables the author to explore experiences of being both a service user and academic researcher. Two accounts of the author’s involvement in mental health research are presented: one which builds on a consultation model and the other based on co-production principles.

Findings: Experiences of power-sharing and collaborative decision-making, alongside disempowerment, are discussed, leading to exploration of the theoretical and practical processes for promoting participation of users in research.

Research limitations/implications: The research is limited because it is undertaken by one individual in a local setting, and is therefore is not generalisable; however, it provides useful insights into the diverse processes of involvement that many service users experience.

Practical implications: Recommendations are presented to support the involvement of service users in research, with final remarks offered considering the possible future implementation of this still emerging tradition.

Originality/value: This paper reflects on the experiences of one service user academic involved in research and highlights diverse experiences of both empowering and disempowering involvement, providing recommendations for best practice.

Methods: The in-depth description we provide here draws on a vast body of notes and records that originated from numerous meetings and sessions. The research group continuously and systematically reflected on their collaboration itself using the interpretative method of “interactive interviewing,” which included that also the personal memories of the researchers were collectively re-discussed before and during the process of writing. Our concrete experiences as a group were then contextualized with and analyzed in the light of more general challenges that are central to collaborative research in general.

Results: Performing collaborative research requires unconventional thinking and improvisation in order to find creative solutions for practical problems and to overcome the structural obstacles inherent to the process of academic knowledge production. An atmosphere of mutual trust and respect within the group is crucial, and continuous self-reflection or supervision can be largely beneficial. Challenges mainly originate from the vast heterogeneity that characterizes the researchers, usually including large differences in economic, cultural, and social capital.

Conclusion: Collaborative research in the field of psychiatry is designed to bring together researchers with widely diverse backgrounds. Emerging conflicts are important parts of knowledge production but also exceptional opportunities to negotiate research ethics, and potential vehicles for personal growth and transformation. Success or failure of collaborative research largely depends on how divergences and conflicts are articulated, mediated, and reflected. This also holds true in the light of the power asymmetries within the research team and the structural power inherent to the engines of academic knowledge production.

Method: The project was conducted in two studies. Firstly, a face-to-face discussion forum held in the Australian Capital Territory (Study 1; n = 25), followed by a national online survey (Study 2; n = 70). Participants in both studies were members of the community who identified as a mental health consumer, carer or both. In Study 1, participants developed topics for mental health research in small group discussions, then voted on which topics, developed across all groups and sorted into thematic areas, were a priority. An online survey was developed from these research topics. Study 2 participants were asked to rate topics on a 5-point priority scale and rank the relative importance of the highest-rated topics.

Results: At the forum, 79 topics were generated and grouped into 14 thematic areas. Votes on priorities were spread across a large number of topics, with the greatest overall support for research relating to integrating care that is sensitive to past experiences of trauma into mental health service delivery (trauma-informed care). Survey responses were similarly spread, with the majority of research topics rated as important by at least 50% of participants and no clear individual priorities for research identified. Amongst items rated as important by approximately 80% of participants, key research areas included the delivery of services, and consumer and carer involvement.

Conclusions: Australian mental health consumers and carers demonstrate a strong understanding of the mental health system and its inadequacies. Although clear specific priorities are difficult to establish, consistent areas of focus are services and the role consumers and carers can play in their improvement. However, for consumer and carer views to be at the forefront of research, it is important to regularly update research agendas and work in partnership across the whole research process.