Co-production and involuntary psychiatric settings

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the popular policy assumption of co-production is feasible in secure psychiatric settings. Design/methodology/approach The assumptions of co-production are listed and then used as a basis for an immanent critique to test the feasibility described in the purpose of the paper. An explanatory critique exploring consumerism in the welfare state then follows. These forms of critique are derived from the philosophy of critical realism. Findings A distinction is made between the co-production of knowledge about mental health services and the actual co-production of those services. It is concluded that the former has emerged but the latter is not feasible, given the limitations on citizenship imposed by psychiatric detention. Research limitations/implications Evidence for the co-production of mental health services (rather than the co-production of knowledge about those services) remains sparse. Practical implications The contradictions about citizenship created by the existence of mental health legislation and the social control role of mental health services requires ongoing honest reflects by mental health professionals and those responsible for the development of mental health services. Social implications As described above, mental health legislation pre-empts confidence in the co-production of mental health services. Originality/value Whilst there is a small literature on co-production and mental health services, alluded to at the outset, this paper uses immanent and explanatory critiques to deepen our understanding of the topic.