Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34368466›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2021

Critical qualitative research on 'madness': knowledge making and activism among those designated 'mad'.

Diana Rose

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Geopsychiatry from below: Exploratory review and preliminary analysis.The International journal of social psychiatry · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Diana RoseResearch School of Social Sciences and Department of Sociology, College of Arts and Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT2600, Australia.
Australian National University · AU

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper charts the background to a project which aimed to map the knowledge being generated across the world by people silenced for centuries - the 'mad': a term with derogatory historical resonances but which is now being reclaimed. The idea that those designated 'mad' can produce knowledge is novel: 'mad' people are imagined as lacking rationality, and incapable of producing knowledge; they are subject to epistemic injustice. Patient engagement in research has grown in the last 20 years but we lack methodological frameworks through which such knowledge can be surfaced. One goal of the project is to let the mad speak their knowledge, often practical knowledge. To do this we had to innovate methodology. Centrally, we refuse the distinction between theory and method for these are constantly intertwined in all research. Thus, what typically comes under 'Method' in background papers is infused with implicit conceptualisation. We carried out 48 interviews in North America, England, Australia, New Zealand, and Eastern and Western Europe. We argue all aspects of these interviews are radically different than is usual for exploratory research in this area. Psychiatry is not central here - it is present only when present in the words of our participants; situated in material and symbolic spaces. We also seek to move away from the individualising therapies of medicines and psychological treatment because they strip participants from their situated realities. Psychiatry enters also because of what it does

Indexed as

critical theory; madness; mental illness; knowledgepower

Identifiers

PMID34368466
PMCPMC8314133
OpenAlexW3159611059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.