Sinclair Aimee
School of Allied Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Front Sociol. 2025 Apr 17;10:1559616. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2025.1559616. eCollection 2025.
There is an increasing recognition of the epistemic injustice perpetrated against individuals deemed mad, leading to a push for the inclusion of their voices in research and academia. Nevertheless, despite being predominantly enacted as progressive, the inclusion of individuals deemed mad within research practices and spaces often fails to disrupt the ways in which methodology is conceptualized and practiced, contributing to the ongoing psychiatrization and exclusion of Mad practices and, more broadly, failing to produce alternatives to carceral responses to madness. In this article, I consider both the potential for methodology to produce temporal violence as well as the potential of Mad Time to disrupt normative and often sanist research practices. To achieve this, I weave together theorizing on Mad Time, post-qualitative inquiry, the experiences of peer support workers, and my own temporal conflicts in attempting to madden research within academia. I propose three ways in which Mad Time may provoke alternative methodological practices that move us closer to epistemic justice: rethinking the concept of data, embracing stumbling, circling, scrambling (becoming), and valuing variations in pace. I conclude by reflecting on the possible implications that thinking with Mad Time might hold for both research and activism, both within and outside of academia.
人们越来越认识到针对被视为疯子的个体所实施的认知不公正，这推动了将他们的声音纳入研究和学术界的努力。然而，尽管将被视为疯子的个体纳入研究实践和空间主要被视为进步之举，但这往往未能扰乱方法论的概念化和实践方式，导致对疯狂实践的持续精神病化和排斥，更广泛地说，未能产生替代监禁应对疯狂的方法。在本文中，我既考虑了方法论产生时间暴力的可能性，也考虑了疯狂时间扰乱规范性且往往是健全主义研究实践的可能性。为实现这一目标，我将关于疯狂时间的理论化、后定性探究、同伴支持工作者的经历以及我自己在试图使学术界的研究疯狂化过程中的时间冲突交织在一起。我提出了三种方式，疯狂时间可能会引发替代方法论实践，使我们更接近认知公正：重新思考数据的概念、接受踉跄、循环、打乱（成为）以及重视节奏变化。最后，我反思了用疯狂时间思考可能对学术界内外的研究和行动主义产生的潜在影响。
