Skip to main content

Relatedness and Relationship Workshop

On 12th September 2016, Zoƫ Boden and Michael Larkin organised a workshop on Relatedness and Relationship in Mental Health at Park House, University of Birmingham. Experts came from psychology, psychiatry, sociology, philosophy, mental healthcare professions, and there were also several experts by experience, that is, people with lived experience of mental distress and carers. The workshop was the output of a project funded by the Independent Social Research Foundation.


The workshop started with a brief introduction by Zoƫ and Michael who talked about the themes emerging from a previous series of workshop they had run on relatedness. They listed three:
  1. Relationships can be either good or bad for mental health
  2. Distributed recovery, where recovery is seen as a feature of a system and not of an individual
  3. The contract between independence and dependance, and how the latter gets a bad press.
Further overlapping themes were pictured in the diagram below, delegates discussed them in groups after the more formal presentations:



The brief presentations were about recent empirical studies relevant to relationships in mental health. I loved the format, as one could get a great overview of the work psychologists and social scientists are doing at the moment, and appreciate both the different methodological approaches and the overlapping issues.

Jacqui Gabb (Open University) talked about romantic couples and what makes people have lasting and successful relationships: her evidence showed the importance of everyday small gestures and shared projects.

Charlotte Marriot (University of Birmingham) explored family dynamics, and found that special connections and secret languages between family members are highly appreciated by people with psychosis.

Anne Denov (Stockholm University) addressed the most controversial relationship in mental health, that between service user and healthcare professional, finding that people need to learn how to be care-smart and navigate services.

Donna Haskayne (Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust) focused on experiences of carers within forensic mental health services.

Zoƫ Boden (London South Bank University) examined the interviews and drawings of young people with psychosis focusing on their self-perceptions and the perceptions of their relationships (see picture below).




The workshop ended with a brief panel discussion in which I also participated, bringing the core issues of project PERFECT to bear on the question of what makes relationships good for mental health.

I thought the workshop was a great opportunity for a genuine exchange of ideas and perspectives, and I am sure that new projects will develop from collaborations among the people who attended.

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. TrĆ©moliĆØre (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo...

A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind

Today's post is by  Karen Yan (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) on her recent paper (co-authored with Chuan-Ya Liao), " A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind " ( Synthese 2023). Karen Yan What drives us to write this paper is our curiosity about what it means when philosophers of mind claim their works are informed by empirical evidence and how to assess this quality of empirically-informedness. Building on Knobe’s (2015) quantitative metaphilosophical analyses of empirically-informed philosophy of mind (EIPM), we investigated further how empirically-informed philosophers rely on empirical research and what metaphilosophical lessons to draw from our empirical results.  We utilize scientometric tools and categorization analysis to provide an empirically reliable description of EIPM. Our methodological novelty lies in integrating the co-citation analysis tool with the conceptual resources from the philosoph...