Social scientists who employ participant observation methods in medical settings are often held accountable for their research methods, specifically in regard to medical research ethics. However, the medical research ethics tradition rubs uneasily against participant observation and the anthropological understanding of the research process. The underlying premise for considering research ethics in the current case is the notion of the vulnerability of psychiatric patients as a participant group. Based on this notion of vulnerability among psychiatric patients, this article discusses the epistemological grounds for vulnerability in anthropological and medical research ethics. The authors draw on their experience with the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics in Norway, and the consequences of the guidelines used for participant observation as a research method in a psychiatric hospital. Social science researchers are required to follow medical ethical guidelines, such as informed consent, the principle of voluntariness, and estimation of risks and benefits. Ethnographers have found these guidelines to be obstructive when doing social science research in a psychiatric hospital. The article suggests the need for reformulation of research guidelines for participant observation in medical settings.

This article investigates the significance of the smoking-room for psychiatric patients: for their everyday interactions, activities and perceptions of what is meaningful, also for their positioning as agents concerning their own and fellow patients' illnesses and problems. A social constructionist perspective is used as well as concepts anchored in a phenomenology of architecture and local place. This article is a part of ethnographic study of the daily life within a psychiatric ward using participant observation and conversations and interviews with psychiatric inpatient and staff in a psychiatric hospital. Important themes from our analysis were 'smoking-room as patients''panopticon', 'smoking-room as the patients' sanctuary' and 'patient-led treatment'. We discuss these themes within a framework of seeing the smoking-room as an arena for patient and staff resistance. Patients' resistance is analysed as attempts to maintain their civil status identity and feelings of dignity in an otherwise powerless situation.

In the past decade, the Norwegian government has emphasized user participation as an important goal in the care of mentally ill patients, through governmental strategic plans. At the same time, the governmental documents request normalization of psychiatric patients, including the re-socialization of psychiatric patients back into society outside the psychiatric hospital. Milieu therapy is a therapeutic tool to ensure user participation and re-socialization. Based on an ethnographic study in a long-term psychiatric ward in a psychiatric hospital, we identified how staff tried to implement user participation in their milieu-oriented therapy work. We have identified three major tensions and challenges in implementing user participation in milieu-therapeutic work. First, it is difficult to implement individual-based user participation and at the same time take collective house rules and codes of conduct into consideration. Second, user participation proved a difficulty when patients' viewpoints challenged staff judgements on proper conduct and goals for which patients might aim. Third, user participation becomes a challenge when trying to establish relationships based on equality when using milieu therapy in a biomedical hierarchical hospital structure. These tensions and challenges are seen in light of paradoxical political frames and demands on one side, and milieu therapy as a complex tradition anchored in different ideologies on the other.

Milieu therapy is widely used as a therapeutic approach in psychiatric wards in the Nordic countries, but few studies exist that report on what practices a milieu therapy approach implies as seen from an ethnographic perspective. Therefore, there is a need to obtain insight into how milieu therapy unfolds in a psychiatric ward setting. The present ethnographic study aims to explore this in a locked-up psychiatric ward that was tied to a psychodynamic-oriented milieu therapy approach. Metaphors from traditional nuclear family life were widely used. Patients were often understood as harmed children and were taught self-management skills; the staff aimed at providing a caring atmosphere; and the patients seemed to behave, sometimes, in a childlike manner. In a Foucaultian framework, milieu therapy can be seen as a therapeutic normalization technique used to produce self-governing individuals. Milieu therapy "raises" patients in order to transform patients' odd behaviour and nonconforming lifestyles. We see this "raising children" approach as a type of intervention that nicely connects to the national policy of normalization and integration politics towards persons with psychiatric diagnoses.

The medical approach dominates in Norwegian psychiatry, but mental health nurses and other ward staff hold that milieu therapy constitutes an additional and important treatment approach for psychiatric patients. In this study, we wanted to explore these approaches as they are implemented in inpatient treatment. We conducted a 9-month ethnographic study in two lock-up psychiatric wards in a Norwegian psychiatric hospital. In this article, we present a constructed case, Mary, to illustrate the voices, experiences, and perspectives of patients and staff as observed primarily in the patients' smoking room, the corridor, and the staffroom. From the perspective of staff, we identified at least two professional perspectives concerning patients' daily life: a strong medical-psychiatric view and a weaker therapeutic milieu, which seemed difficult to implement. When considering the view of people in care, we observed that patients' experiences and points of view occurred and remained to a large degree in their smoking room, and patients seemed to have little impact on their own treatment programmes. This stands in sharp contrast to patients' legal rights to participate in any important decisions regarding their treatment and to the espoused person-centred orientation in health care today.