Is “me-search” a kiss of death in mental health research?

Abstract

Applicants to graduate school in clinical psychology are warned against disclosing something in their application that could be the "kiss of death," information that by itself causes admissions committees to reject otherwise strong applicants. Specifically, several renowned authorities warn applicants against disclosing a lived experience with, or close connection to, psychopathology. This state of affairs seems counterintuitive. At least some people who pursue research in clinical psychology do so, in part, because they have a lived experience with mental illness. This pursuit is termed "self-relevant" research, which is also known by the pejorative label, "mesearch." Mental health professionals with lived experience are sometimes referred to as "prosumers." There are anecdotal accounts of stigma toward self-relevant research in clinical psychology, but despite the important professional stakes at-hand (e.g., gaining admissions into a graduate program), we lack systematic documentation of such experiences. To fill this research gap, I use a Scholarly Personal Narrative to facilitate a scholarly conversation about this topic. I reflect upon my own experiences with stigma for when I, a depression researcher, shared my personal connections to depression in my family. This narrative calls for inquiry on self-relevant research and questions biases against this pursuit, for example, the assumption that self-relevant research hinders objectivity. Noting exemplars of people conducting self-relevant research in clinical psychology (e.g., Marsha Linehan), encouraging a more robust practice of self-relevant research may help combat psychopathology stigma. Impact Statement: It is not uncommon for researchers who have direct or indirect experience with a mental illness to study that same mental illness. This is called "mesearch," a pejorative term that implies pursuing a personally relevant research topic biases objectivity or is suspect in some other way. However, notable examples (e.g., Marsha Linehan) combat this stigmatizing notion, and acceptance and disclosure of me-search can be positive for students, scientists, and clients with mental illness, alike.

Stigmatizing our own: Self-relevant research (Me-search) is common but frowned upon in clinical psychological science

“…Overall, disclosure of SRR (i.e., confiding a personal connection to one's research) was viewed as more inappropriate than disclosure of non-SRR (i.e., disclosing a non-personal reason for pursuing research) across respondents; these views did not differ based on personal engagement in SRR, perhaps due to internalized beliefs about disclosure appropriateness drawn from implicit and explicit norms within the field. These findings accord with the idea that the field is split, with some perspectives discouraging SRR disclosure (e.g., "Mitch's Uncensored Guide...";Prinstein et al, 2017) and others encouraging it (Devendorf, 2020b;Salzer, 2021;Victor et al, 2020). Disclosure of SRR thus likely varies by context, domain of research, and other aspects of one's identity and position within the field (Salzer, 2021;Rüsch, N., & Kösters, 2021).…”

“…Because the term "me-search" is often used pejoratively, we use the more neutral term, self-relevant research (SRR: Devendorf, 2020a). SRR is simply the pursuit of research by those who have a lived experience with, or close connection to, their research area (Devendorf, 2020b).…”

“…In 2011, Marsha Linehan publicly shared that she used her personal experiences with mental health treatment to fuel the development of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), which is now a well-validated,empirically supported therapy for the treatment of borderline personality disorder (Kliem et al, 2010;Linehan, 2020). Linehan waited decades to disclose her experience out of concern that colleagues would label her work as biased, selfish, and untrustworthy (Linehan, 2020) -fears that are still felt by other self-relevant researchers (SRRers) today (Devendorf, 2020b;Gardner et al, 2017;Victor et al, 2021). In his memoir, "Another Kind of Madness," Stephen Hinshaw (2017) recounted his own experiences with depression, obsessive thinking, and troubled eating patterns, as well as his family's experiences in facing mental health stigma.…”

“…While guidance around disclosure highlights negative perceptions of SRR (Prinstein et al, 2017), some mental health professionals and stakeholders appear to hold positive perceptions of SRR. Several commentaries and studies acknowledge the unique perspectives offered by mental health professionals with lived experience, also known as prosumers (Boyd et al, 2016;Devendorf, 2020b;Kundra & Salzer, 2019;Oberleitner et al, 2020;Victor et al, 2021). For example, people with lived experience and advocates of mental health difficulties may view SRRers as having greater insight or possessing intrinsic motivation.…”

The Sober Professor: Reflections on the Sober Paradox, Sober Phobia, and Disclosing an Alcohol Recovery Identity in Academia

“…According to Ragins (2008), the decision to disclose stigmatized identities depends on many factors, including centrality to one's identity. Sometimes referred to as "mesearch" (Gardner et al, 2017) or "self-relevant research" (Devendorf, 2020), academics, especially social scientists, tend to research topics they have a personal stake in or experience with (Ross et al, 2020). On several occasions, I found that concealment prevented me from fully engaging with my research colleagues and participants.…”