View in EDS

Mad, mentally ill and neurodivergent professionals: epistemic injustice in practice.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Mad, mentally ill and neurodivergent professionals: epistemic injustice in practice.
Authors: Beagan, Brenda L.1 (AUTHOR) bbeagan@dal.ca, Gulliver, Meghan1 (AUTHOR), Sibbald, Kaitlin1 (AUTHOR), Pride, Tara1 (AUTHOR), Yee, Brianna1 (AUTHOR)
Source: Disability & Society. Feb2026, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p429-450. 22p.
Subject Terms: *Qualitative research, *Occupational roles, *Interprofessional relations, *Social workers, *Mental health services, *Neurodiversity, *Academia, *Psychological adaptation, *Occupational therapy, *Theory of knowledge, *Research methodology, *Discrimination (Sociology), *Employment, Nurses, Medical personnel, Social justice, Prejudices, Professional ethics, Research funding, Mental illness, Interviewing, Statistical sampling, Work environment, Judgment sampling, Professional identity, Descriptive statistics, Thematic analysis, Social case work, Attitudes of medical personnel, Nursing practice, Social skills, Psychological stress, Physicians, Professional competence, Social stigma, Self-disclosure, Psychosocial factors
Abstract: In addition to fields of practice, the professions lay claim to particular domains of knowledge and expertise, privileging specific ways of thinking and doing. This limits space within the professions for the strengths of those who identify as Mad, mentally ill and/or neurodivergent (MMIND). This paper explores the experiences of twelve professionals from across Canada (occupational therapy, nursing, medicine, social work and academia) who identify as MMIND. Reflexive thematic analysis of qualitative interview data reveals epistemic injustice and violence – injustice concerning credibility as a legitimate knower. MMIND professionals were cast as incapable, incompetent, incredible, unwell, and in need of care, eroding their assumed authority and expertise as professionals. Though participants saw their MMIND identities as beneficial to their work, they navigated disclosures with considerable care. Pressured to contort their work and their self-presentation to meet normative standards, they experienced the epistemic violence of 'smothering' their own narratives to maintain credibility. Points of interest: Though Madness, mental illness and neurodiversity (MMIND) differ in important ways, they all carry (mis)perceptions that people are less capable and less credible. Beliefs that Mad, mentally ill and neurodivergent people are less credible may be a particular problem in professional work contexts. Experiences of Madness, mental illness and neurodivergence may bring valuable strengths to professional practice, yet those are undermined when people are perceived as less-capable and less-trustworthy. When professionals are pressured to hide their Mad, mentally ill and neurodivergent identities, there are costs to them, to their colleagues, to their clients/patients, and to their professions, as new and different ways of doing, being and thinking get suppressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Disability & Society is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:In addition to fields of practice, the professions lay claim to particular domains of knowledge and expertise, privileging specific ways of thinking and doing. This limits space within the professions for the strengths of those who identify as Mad, mentally ill and/or neurodivergent (MMIND). This paper explores the experiences of twelve professionals from across Canada (occupational therapy, nursing, medicine, social work and academia) who identify as MMIND. Reflexive thematic analysis of qualitative interview data reveals epistemic injustice and violence – injustice concerning credibility as a legitimate knower. MMIND professionals were cast as incapable, incompetent, incredible, unwell, and in need of care, eroding their assumed authority and expertise as professionals. Though participants saw their MMIND identities as beneficial to their work, they navigated disclosures with considerable care. Pressured to contort their work and their self-presentation to meet normative standards, they experienced the epistemic violence of 'smothering' their own narratives to maintain credibility. Points of interest: Though Madness, mental illness and neurodiversity (MMIND) differ in important ways, they all carry (mis)perceptions that people are less capable and less credible. Beliefs that Mad, mentally ill and neurodivergent people are less credible may be a particular problem in professional work contexts. Experiences of Madness, mental illness and neurodivergence may bring valuable strengths to professional practice, yet those are undermined when people are perceived as less-capable and less-trustworthy. When professionals are pressured to hide their Mad, mentally ill and neurodivergent identities, there are costs to them, to their colleagues, to their clients/patients, and to their professions, as new and different ways of doing, being and thinking get suppressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09687599
DOI:10.1080/09687599.2025.2520780