↓ Skip to main content

Participatory research: real or imagined

Overview of attention for article published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
95 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Participatory research: real or imagined
Published in
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00127-018-1549-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana Rose

Abstract

Participatory research has as a central tenet that power relations between researcher and researched be reduced. In the last 20 years, a substantial literature has demonstrated the difficulties inherent in this as well as the troublesome nature of certain central concepts. (1) To describe and illustrate a new form of participatory research where the researchers share at least something with the participants in the research. That is, all are users of mental health services. (2) To reflect on the novel form of participatory research in terms of whether it shares, mitigates or avoids some of the difficulties of more traditional forms and to pose the question: what is a mental health community? The model described is new in that the researchers have a different status than in conventional participatory research. But it is illuminated by and itself illuminates issues of power relations in research and difficulties in reducing that; gatekeepers and the exclusion of crucial groups of service users; the confusion of demographic representativeness with the silencing of marginalized perspectives; coming out of the academic space and the shifting issue of what counts as 'communities' in mental health. The examples given are moderate in scale and relevant to social psychiatry. Yet they may change methods and the definition of participatory research and at the same time be vitiated by but also illuminate dilemmas already identified in the literature albeit in different formations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Student > Master 15 15%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 25 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 20%
Psychology 14 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Arts and Humanities 4 4%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 27 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#628,960
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
#97
of 2,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,516
of 345,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
#3
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.