Search

Since the 1960s, deinstitutionalisation has been salient in mental health reforms across the West. In Norway, this culminated in the National Action Plan for Mental Health (1999-2008), where meeting places in community mental health care were deemed a prioritised strategy to counter social isolation among people in psychosocial hardships. However, during the same period in England, meeting places were beginning to be contested for contributing to social exclusion. This is an inquiry of meeting places in Norway guided by the following research question: How do service users discuss their encounters with the spaces and people of meeting places? Situated in community psychology and participatory research traditions, we engaged in a participatory discourse analysis of four focus group discussions with 22 service users from meeting places. We detail and discuss four central discursive constructions of meeting places against the backdrop of a civil society identified as fraught with sanism that stigmatises and excludes service users: a compensatory public welfare arrangement positioning service users as citizens with social rights; a peer community positioning service users as peers who share common identities and interests; spaces of compassion validating service users as fellow human beings who are precious in their own right; and greenhouses facilitating service users to expand their horizons of possibility. This inquiry implies that meeting places could mean everything to the people who attend them by facilitating opportunities considered less accessible elsewhere in their everyday lives in a sanist civil society.

In previous research, meeting places have been favourably addressed by service users, but they have also been contested as exclusionary. In this participatory explorative study, we sought to perform a contextual analysis of meeting places in Norway based on a discourse analysis of three focus group discussions with 15 staff members. We asked the following question: how do meeting-place employees discuss their concrete and abstract encounters with service users and their experiences? We focused on service user involvement, which was largely analysed as neoliberal consultation and responsibilisation. Service users were positioned as resisting responsibility trickling down and defending staffed meeting places. Social democratic discourse was identified in the gaps of neoliberal discourse, which is noteworthy given that Norway is a social democracy. This relates to global concerns about displacements of democracy. We suggest that meeting places appear to hold the potential for staff and service users to collaborate more democratically. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]