Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the bias of psychiatrists and other healthcare staff’s perception of “presenting psychosis”. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to suggest that psychosis, rather than residing in the individual, can be triggered by a hostile ward environment (e.g. very loud emergency alarms) as well as the negative attitudes of staff and friction with other service users; second, to argue that psychosis is not just in the person’s mind but interpreted and negatively labelled by psychiatrists and other healthcare professionals.

This paper is based on the lived experience of Ben, who was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2003 (when he spent two years in and out of a mental health unit). Ben had a relapse in 2013 and spent six full months in the same unit. Ben has been working as a peer worker on the same ward he was on as a patient for the last 17 months. This paper is informed by participant observation as a patient and peer worker, particularly reflecting on the general ward environment, ward reviews and punitive action faced by Ben and other service users. The title of this paper is based on occasions when Ben has been told that he cannot interact or take service users on leave off the ward, because they were “presenting psychosis”.

Ways of judging whether someone is presenting psychotic behaviour sounds straightforward enough but in fact can be quite complex. Whether someone is presenting psychotic behaviour is open to interpretation. Psychotic behaviour is perceived as latent or inherent within the individual by psychiatry. This paper makes the case that presenting psychotic behaviour is in fact a construct or interpretation by psychiatrists that works to limit people’s freedom, coerce them, take away their leave off the ward and voice, and which expresses power imbalances between staff and service users. The impact for service users of psychiatrists and staff’s decision-making can lead to service users being angry and upset, a negative ward environment and feelings of unfreedom. A good example is that service users present psychotic behaviour due to a hostile and frightening ward environment, with loud emergency alarms (like sirens) and the threat of restraint, restrictive practice and seclusion in de-escalation rooms being used as a threat.

People with mental illness, particularly schizophrenia like Ben, can be stereotyped as psychotic, aggressive and dangerous or a risk to themselves and others. While this can sometimes be the case the majority of people with mental illness that Ben has interacted with for over 20 years could be described as “broken” and in need of care, fixing and giving them hope in their recovery. This paper is of value because it draws on over twenty years of experience of the lived experience of Ben and his diagnosis of the harmful label of schizophrenia. It describes the added value of peer work in an in-patient mental health unit. It also introduces the new idea of “clemency”.

The hoped-for “just recovery” from the COVID-19 pandemic has not occurred. This chapter examines socioeconomic disparities laid bare by the pandemic in the United States. They have left a marked impression, suggesting that the concept of “American exceptionalism” has negative as well as positive connotations especially when compared with other high-income countries. Strikingly, democracy is not delivering for many Americans, and yet that is not a new situation, as much scholarship shows. These findings challenge received wisdom about how this country is in the aggregate labeled “developed” when many Americans live in conditions similar to or worse than those the World Bank categorizes as “developing.” Against this background, the chapter assesses experiential learning models for engaging students on the SDGs to assess these disparities. While researching social justice gaps in Pittsburgh and Atlanta with Carnegie Mellon students, however, the lack of disaggregated data emerged as a human rights issue and major barrier to fulfilling the SDG principle to “leave no one behind” (LNOB). These findings suggest a paradigm shift is needed, using the SDGs to advance human rights, elevating socioeconomic rights, localizing issues, generating disaggregated data to drive policy recommendations, and scaling up the community of practice that is engaged in this paradigm shift. Field building these aspects of sustainable development has the possibility to positively shape policies, outcomes, and help this democracy actually deliver for all, not just for some. For the United States to lead and bolster human rights and democracy around the world, inequalities at home must be addressed.

The application of Earth Observation (EO) science to sustainable development has become increasingly accessible. This is partly due to an open science movement concurrent with increased popularity of both higher education partnerships and the concept of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The confluence of these movements presents a unique capacity building opportunity: to provide emerging professionals with the ability to capitalize on open EO data and software, leveraging them for sustainable development across various thematic areas. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework and case study illustrating how academic partnerships can catalyze the integration of ESD on a small scale in postsecondary education.

This paper presents a novel capacity building approach via the co-development of higher education curriculum by SERVIR and ITC. SERVIR is a U.S. government initiative of NASA. ITC is the University of Twente’s Faculty of Geo-Information Science and EO. This paper integrated SERVIR’s open-source EO tools into courses at ITC, building the capacity of students to apply such tools to address real-world environmental challenges.

This paper provides a case study indicating that educational partnerships can strengthen the ESD approach of a Higher Education Institution (HEI) by providing local environmental challenges and open-source tools to combat those challenges, while simultaneously strengthening the capacity building strategies of both institutions.

While educational partnerships have pursued curriculum development initiatives, the literature is limited in approaches that supplement existing courses with curriculum materials co-developed with an external partner. This paper provides a framework and case study of this smaller-scale collaboration for HEIs wishing to leverage external partners to use ESD in the higher education classroom.