The practice of participatory action research: Complicity, power and prestige in dialogue with the 'racialised mad'.

Mental health service users in the UK have become increasingly involved in research over the last 2 decades partly as a consequence of research governance. Ethnic minority service users, however, point to power imbalances stemming from marginalisation and discrimination creating barriers to knowledge co-production (Kalathil, J. (2013).

Strengthening Review and Publication of Participatory Mental Health Research to Promote Empowerment and Prevent Co-optation.

As reviewers, editors, and researchers with lived experience of mental health challenges, addiction, and/or psychosocial distress/disability, the authors have struggled to find an adequate way to address inappropriate or misleading use of the term "participatory methods" to describe research that involves people with lived experience in only a superficial or tokenistic manner. The authors of this article have found that, in their experience, editors or other reviewers often appear to give authors extensive leeway on claims of participatory methods that more accurately reflect tokenism or superficial involvement. The problem of co-optation is described, examples from the authors' experiences are given, the potential harms arising from co-optation are articulated, and a series of concrete actions that journal editors, reviewers, and authors can take to preserve the core intent of participatory approaches are offered.