Ziegenhagen Jenny, Krämer Ute Maria, Fehler Georgia, Perez Guillermo Ruiz, Schmidt Daniela, Cubellis Lauren, Küsel Madeleine, von Peter Sebastian
Medical School Brandenburg Theodor Fontane, Fehrbelliner Strasse 68, Neuruppin, 16816, Germany.
Kellerkinder e.V. Germany, Berlin, Germany.
Res Involv Engagem. 2025 May 13;11(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s40900-025-00720-4.
Collaborative or co-productive approaches in the field of mental health care research are often legitimized by the argument that researchers with lived experience of mental health crisis and disability (= LE) produce different knowledge as compared to those without these experiences At the same time, there is a lack of studies that report on the underlying collaborative processes and on how these processes affect the knowledge that is being produced. This manuscript describes a collaborative research process and how this process impacted the knowledge produced.
The collaborative research process entailed a multi-step coding process, using a variant of thematic analysis. To facilitate comparison, two code systems were produced, one by researchers with and the other by researchers without LE of mental health crisis and disability. Subsequently, the code systems of these two sub-teams were integrated into a single code system. To evaluate the potential differences between the code formations of the two sub-teams as well as the effects of their integration, three focus groups suceeded, composed of 1) psychology students as well as researchers 2) with and 3) without LE, whose results are at the core of this manuscript.
The focus group participants described extensive differences between the code formation of the researchers with and without LE - first in form, but also more substantially in the contents of both systems - corresponding to two distinct logics for understanding the implementation of PSW: an "institutional" and "interactional" logic. The integration process of both code systems was described as invasive, resulting in a final code system that more closely resembled the primary code system of the researchers without LE.
The distinct logic of the two code systems can be thought of as distinct but complementary positions on the topic of PSW implementation. Such an explanation, however, falls short, as it silences the power relations and diverging interests and positions of the researchers involved. This is supported by what resulted from the integration of both code systems, resulting in the continuation of the logic of the researchers without LE. It is concluded that epistemic struggles and their knowledge politics require greater attention in the context of collaborative mental health research.
心理健康护理研究领域中的协作或共同生产方法，常因这样的观点而被合法化，即有心理健康危机和残疾生活经历（=LE）的研究人员与没有这些经历的研究人员相比，会产生不同的知识。与此同时，缺乏关于潜在协作过程以及这些过程如何影响所产生知识的研究报告。本手稿描述了一个协作研究过程以及该过程如何影响所产生的知识。
协作研究过程涉及一个多步骤编码过程，采用主题分析的一种变体。为便于比较，生成了两个编码系统，一个由有心理健康危机和残疾生活经历的研究人员生成，另一个由没有此类经历的研究人员生成。随后，将这两个子团队的编码系统整合为一个单一编码系统。为评估两个子团队编码形成的潜在差异以及整合的效果，成功举办了三个焦点小组，分别由1）心理学学生以及研究人员2）有生活经历的和3）没有生活经历的组成，其结果是本手稿的核心内容。
焦点小组参与者描述了有生活经历和没有生活经历的研究人员在编码形成方面存在广泛差异——首先在形式上，而且在两个系统的内容上差异更大——这对应于理解个人支持工作者（PSW）实施的两种不同逻辑：“制度”逻辑和“互动”逻辑。两个编码系统的整合过程被描述为具有侵入性，导致最终的编码系统更类似于没有生活经历的研究人员的原始编码系统。
两个编码系统的不同逻辑可被视为在个人支持工作者实施主题上不同但互补的立场。然而，这样的解释并不充分，因为它掩盖了所涉研究人员的权力关系以及不同的利益和立场。这得到了两个编码系统整合结果的支持，导致没有生活经历的研究人员的逻辑得以延续。得出的结论是，在协作心理健康研究的背景下，认知斗争及其知识政治需要得到更多关注。
