A critical analysis of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services policy in England, 2000‐2015

Policy in Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMH) in England has undergone radical changes in the last 15 years, with far reaching implications for funding models, access to services and service delivery. Using corpus analysis and critical discourse analysis, we explore how childhood, mental health, and CAMHS are constituted in 15 policy documents, 9 pre‐2010, and 6 post 2010. We trace how these constructions have changed over time, and consider the practice implications of these changes. We identify how children’s distress is individualised, through medicalising discourses and shifting understandings of the relationship between socioeconomic context and mental health. This is evidenced in a shift from seeing children’s mental health challenges as produced by social and economic inequities, to a view that children’s mental health must be addressed early to prevent future socio‐economic burden. We consider the implications CAMHS policies for the relationship between children, families, mental health services and the state. The paper concludes by exploring how concepts of ‘parity of esteem’ and ‘stigma reduction’ may inadvertently exacerbate the individualisation of children’s mental health.

Personal statement in PhD applications: Gatekeepers' evaluative perspectives

This paper explores academic readers’ views of the doctoral Personal Statements (PSs) written by student applicants across institutional contexts. The analysis was based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with 19 faculty members involved in evaluating the PhD applications within Education at one UK-based and one US-based university. Data were coded by NVivo software and then analysed using methods drawn from critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis to unravel participant intended meaning. Results suggest that the situated knowledge of institutional settings where these academics are based will affect the ways in which they act and think in relation to particular forms of discourse. Specifically, the UK and US academics’ interpretations of PSs and its associated evaluation practices are related to their conceptual understanding of the culture of doctoral level study and the structure of the admissions process in their own particular academic community. The paper concludes with some pedagogical implications and a discussion of potential areas for further study to investigate the ‘academic’ and ‘rhetorical’ aspects of the PS and to understand the different and often implicit features of the PS across different disciplines, programmes, and institutional contexts.

Somatic pedagogies: Critiquing and resisting the affective discourse of the neoliberal state from an embodied anarchist perspective.

This paper takes as its context widespread feelings of anxiety within neoliberal society caused by a combination of material and discursive factors including precarious access to work and resources. It is argued that the state uses ‘discourses of affect’ to produce compliant subjects able to deal with (and unable to desire beyond) neoliberal precarity and anxiety. Critical education theorists have argued that discourses of ‘well-being’, emotional support and self-help have gained increasing purchase in mainstream education and in popular culture. These discourses are dangerous because they are individualized and depoliticized, and undermine collective political struggle. At the same time there has been a ‘turn to affect’ in critical academia, producing critical pedagogies that resist state affective discourse. I argue that these practices are essential for problematizing neoliberal discourse, yet existing literature tends to elide the role of the body in effective resistance, emphasising intellectual aspects of critique. The paper sketches an alternative, drawing on psychoanalytic and practiced pedagogies that aim to transgress the mind-body dualism and hierarchy, in particular Roberto Freire’s work on Somatherapy.

A critical narrative analysis of shared decision-making in acute, inpatient mental health care

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a high priority in healthcare policy and is complementary to the recovery philosophy in mental health care. This agenda has been operationalised within the Values-Based Practice (VBP) framework, which offers a theoretical and practical model to promote democratic interprofessional approaches to decision-making. However, these are limited by a lack of recognition of the implications of power implicit within the mental health system. This study considers issues of power within the context of decision-making and examines to what extent decisions about patients? care on acute in-patient wards are perceived to be shared. Focus groups were conducted with 46 mental health professionals, service users, and carers. The data were analysed using the framework of critical narrative analysis (CNA). The findings of the study suggested each group constructed different identity positions, which placed them as inside or outside of the decision-making process. This reflected their view of themselves as best placed to influence a decision on behalf of the service user. In conclusion, the discourse of VBP and SDM needs to take account of how differentials of power and the positioning of speakers affect the context in which decisions take place.