Beresford Peter
Centre for Citizen Participation, Brunel University, Islenorth, Middlesex, United Kingdom.
Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2005 Jan-Mar;14(1):4-9. doi: 10.1017/s1121189x0000186x.
This article, written from a service user/survivor perspective, explores a hypothesis which seeks to offer a more systematic basis for the full and equal involvement of mental health service users/survivors in both the research process and research structures more generally. The hypothesis challenges traditional emphasis on positivist assumptions about the priority of values of 'distance', 'neutrality' and 'objectivity' (which it argues discriminate against service users and their experiential knowledge). It explores instead the idea that 'the shorter the distance between direct experience and its interpretation, then the less likely resulting knowledge is to be inaccurate, unreliable and distorted.'
The proposal discusses ways in which such (objective and subjective) distance may be reduced, to improve the quality of research, to enable more equal involvement of service users and their direct experience and to make it possible for non-service user researchers to work alongside service users on more equal terms.
本文从服务使用者/幸存者的视角出发,探讨一种假说,该假说旨在为精神卫生服务使用者/幸存者全面、平等地参与研究过程及更广泛的研究结构提供一个更系统的基础。该假说对传统上强调实证主义关于“距离”“中立性”和“客观性”价值观的优先性提出挑战(它认为这些价值观歧视服务使用者及其经验性知识)。相反,它探讨了这样一种观点,即“直接经验与其解释之间的距离越短,由此产生的知识就越不可能不准确、不可靠和被扭曲”。
该提议讨论了可以减少这种(客观和主观)距离的方法,以提高研究质量,使服务使用者及其直接经验能够更平等地参与,并使非服务使用者研究人员能够与服务使用者在更平等的基础上合作。