TY - JOUR
T1 - Mutuality as a method: advancing a social paradigm for global mental health through mutual learning
AU - Bemme, Doerte
AU - Roberts, Tessa
AU - Ae-Ngibise, Kenneth Ayuurebobi
AU - Gumbonzvanda, Nyaradzayi
AU - Joag, Kaustubh
AU - Kagee, Ashraf
AU - Machisa, Mercilene
AU - Van Der Westhuizen, Claire
AU - van Rensburg, André Janse
AU - Willan, Samantha
AU - Wuerth, Milena
AU - Aoun, May
AU - Jain, Sumeet
AU - Lund, Crick
AU - Mathias, Kaaren
AU - Read, Ursula
AU - Taylor Salisbury, Tatiana
AU - Burgess, Rochelle Ann
N1 - Funding Information:
This article was supported by funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, Centre for Society and Mental Health at King’s College London [ES/S012567/1], the King’s Together Fund at King’s College London, and the Impact Fund of the Department for Global Health and Social Medicine. TTS is funded by UK Research and Innovation [MR/T019662/1]. TR is funded by a British Academy fellowship [PF21\210001]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funders or organizations.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/6/1
Y1 - 2023/6/1
N2 - Purpose: Calls for “mutuality” in global mental health (GMH) aim to produce knowledge more equitably across epistemic and power differences. With funding, convening, and publishing power still concentrated in institutions in the global North, efforts to decolonize GMH emphasize the need for mutual learning instead of unidirectional knowledge transfers. This article reflects on mutuality as a concept and practice that engenders sustainable relations, conceptual innovation, and queries how epistemic power can be shared.Methods: We draw on insights from an online mutual learning process over 8 months between 39 community-based and academic collaborators working in 24 countries. They came together to advance the shift towards a social paradigm in GMH. Results: Our theorization of mutuality emphasizes that the processes and outcomes of knowledge production are inextricable. Mutual learning required an open-ended, iterative, and slower paced process that prioritized trust and remained responsive to all collaborators’ needs and critiques. This resulted in a social paradigm that calls for GMH to (1) move from a deficit to a strength-based view of community mental health, (2) include local and experiential knowledge in scaling processes, (3) direct funding to community organizations, and (4) challenge concepts, such as trauma and resilience, through the lens of lived experience of communities in the global South. Conclusion: Under the current institutional arrangements in GMH, mutuality can only be imperfectly achieved. We present key ingredients of our partial success at mutual learning and conclude that challenging existing structural constraints is crucial to prevent a tokenistic use of the concept.
AB - Purpose: Calls for “mutuality” in global mental health (GMH) aim to produce knowledge more equitably across epistemic and power differences. With funding, convening, and publishing power still concentrated in institutions in the global North, efforts to decolonize GMH emphasize the need for mutual learning instead of unidirectional knowledge transfers. This article reflects on mutuality as a concept and practice that engenders sustainable relations, conceptual innovation, and queries how epistemic power can be shared.Methods: We draw on insights from an online mutual learning process over 8 months between 39 community-based and academic collaborators working in 24 countries. They came together to advance the shift towards a social paradigm in GMH. Results: Our theorization of mutuality emphasizes that the processes and outcomes of knowledge production are inextricable. Mutual learning required an open-ended, iterative, and slower paced process that prioritized trust and remained responsive to all collaborators’ needs and critiques. This resulted in a social paradigm that calls for GMH to (1) move from a deficit to a strength-based view of community mental health, (2) include local and experiential knowledge in scaling processes, (3) direct funding to community organizations, and (4) challenge concepts, such as trauma and resilience, through the lens of lived experience of communities in the global South. Conclusion: Under the current institutional arrangements in GMH, mutuality can only be imperfectly achieved. We present key ingredients of our partial success at mutual learning and conclude that challenging existing structural constraints is crucial to prevent a tokenistic use of the concept.
KW - Global mental health
KW - Mutuality
KW - Mutual learning
KW - Decolonizing knowledge
KW - Social determinants of mental health
KW - Epistemic justice
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85163747966&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00127-023-02493-1
DO - 10.1007/s00127-023-02493-1
M3 - Article
SN - 0933-7954
JO - Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
JF - Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
ER -