The significance of reflexive negotiation in networks - Networks and meaning in people with mental health and/or substance-use challenges

IF 2.5 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ellen Flaaten, Jan Georg Friesinger, Inger Beate Larsen
{"title":"The significance of reflexive negotiation in networks - Networks and meaning in people with mental health and/or substance-use challenges","authors":"Ellen Flaaten,&nbsp;Jan Georg Friesinger,&nbsp;Inger Beate Larsen","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>People with mental health or substance abuse problems often face social difficulties. At the same time, research highlights the importance of social factors as determinants of mental health. These phenomena are distinct yet intertwined. Looking for explanations in health and social factors may seem complex but raises questions about linkages between actor and structure. In this study we aim to circumvent what we believe to be simplifications when understanding networks as “structural effects” by maintaining a grounded approach. We critically examine perceptions of networks in an attempt to bridge a gap between the individual and structural level by asking two questions: “What are the characteristics of the networks of users of community mental health services, and what aspects of their network do users highlight as important?”. The findings show some variation in network structures, but as expected, several participants reported small and/or homogeneous networks. A conscious attitude toward different but contradictory relational and personal perspectives seems to be significant. For example, maintaining a sufficient number of relationships conflicted with evaluations of one's own health and assessments of relationship qualities. We argue that this evokes a negotiating way of being and suggest that reflexivity might serve as a missing mechanism challenging structural perspectives yet simultaneously representing new structures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100619"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000976","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People with mental health or substance abuse problems often face social difficulties. At the same time, research highlights the importance of social factors as determinants of mental health. These phenomena are distinct yet intertwined. Looking for explanations in health and social factors may seem complex but raises questions about linkages between actor and structure. In this study we aim to circumvent what we believe to be simplifications when understanding networks as “structural effects” by maintaining a grounded approach. We critically examine perceptions of networks in an attempt to bridge a gap between the individual and structural level by asking two questions: “What are the characteristics of the networks of users of community mental health services, and what aspects of their network do users highlight as important?”. The findings show some variation in network structures, but as expected, several participants reported small and/or homogeneous networks. A conscious attitude toward different but contradictory relational and personal perspectives seems to be significant. For example, maintaining a sufficient number of relationships conflicted with evaluations of one's own health and assessments of relationship qualities. We argue that this evokes a negotiating way of being and suggest that reflexivity might serve as a missing mechanism challenging structural perspectives yet simultaneously representing new structures.
网络中反身性谈判的意义——有心理健康和/或物质使用挑战的人的网络和意义
有精神健康或药物滥用问题的人经常面临社会困难。与此同时,研究强调了社会因素作为心理健康决定因素的重要性。这些现象既不同又交织在一起。在健康和社会因素中寻找解释似乎很复杂,但却提出了行为者和结构之间联系的问题。在这项研究中,我们的目标是通过保持一种接地的方法来规避我们认为的将网络理解为“结构效应”时的简化。我们通过提出两个问题,批判性地审视对网络的看法,试图弥合个人和结构层面之间的差距:“社区精神卫生服务用户网络的特征是什么,用户强调网络的哪些方面是重要的?”研究结果显示了网络结构的一些变化,但正如预期的那样,一些参与者报告了较小和/或同质的网络。对不同但矛盾的关系和个人观点有意识的态度似乎很重要。例如,维持足够数量的关系与对自己健康状况的评估和对关系质量的评估相冲突。我们认为,这唤起了一种存在的谈判方式,并建议自反性可能作为一种缺失的机制,挑战结构观点,同时代表新的结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信