Bob Sapey’s research while affiliated with Lancaster University and other places

This book has explored the distinctions and boundaries between madness/distress and disability, and has highlighted some potential bridges between them. Through bringing together key scholars and activists, from the disabled people's and survivor movements, and from disability studies and mad studies, we wanted to build on established knowledge to generate fresh learning, support the formation of alliances and even inspire action. Our project seemed both timely and considerably overdue. We were conscious that engagement at these boundaries brings risks: of talking at cross purposes, of semantic entanglements, intellectualisations and the fuelling of misunderstandings and misperceptions. Common words like madness or disability resonate differently in diverse contexts and are interconnected, so that 'using one particular word leads more easily to some words than to others' (Biesta, 2010, 540); impairment to mental illness, for example. We were aware that our attempts, and those of our contributors, to articulate complex issues, especially where there is disagreement, might sow the seeds of conflict, confusion or inertia. Rather than bringing people closer, there was a danger of reaping greater distance and division. Yet we wanted to promote understanding and appreciation of each other's positions and perspectives, and we felt that highlighting these complexities would ultimately be helpful. As we have seen, differences and disagreements exist not only between people in the mental health user/survivor movements on the one hand, and the disabled people's movement on the other, but within those movements too. Moreover, these debates take on a different flavour and importance as they are refracted through diverse welfare contexts. For example, this book includes reflections on the impact of psychiatric colonialism in India; welfare collectivist traditions in Western Europe; and the individual rights focus which has characterised activism in the US.

This book explores the challenges of applying disability theory and policy, including the social model of disability, to madness and distress. It brings together leading scholars and activists from Europe, North America, Australia and India, to explore the relationship between madness, distress and disability. Whether mental health problems should be viewed as disabilities is a pressing concern, especially since the inclusion of psychosocial disability in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This book will appeal to policy makers, practitioners, activists and academics. - See more at: http://www.policypress.co.uk/display.asp?k=9781447314585#sthash.1rKNjGfz.dpuf

Whether mental health problems should be viewed as disabilities is a pressing concern, especially since the inclusion of psychosocial disability in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This book explores the challenges of applying disability theory and policy, including the social model of disability, to madness, mental illness and distress. It brings together leading scholars and activists from Europe, North America, Australia and India, to explore the relationship between madness, distress and disability and enhance our collective understanding of the issues.

This book has explored the distinctions and boundaries between madness/distress and disability, and has highlighted some potential bridges between them. Through bringing together key scholars and activists, from the disabled people's and survivor movements, and from disability studies and mad studies, we wanted to build on established knowledge to generate fresh learning, support the formation of alliances and even inspire action. Our project seemed both timely and considerably overdue. We were conscious that engagement at these boundaries brings risks: of talking at cross purposes, of semantic entanglements, intellectualisations and the fuelling of misunderstandings and misperceptions. Common words like madness or disability resonate differently in diverse contexts and are interconnected, so that ‘using one particular word leads more easily to some words than to others’ (Biesta, 2010, 540); impairment to mental illness, for example. We were aware that our attempts, and those of our contributors, to articulate complex issues, especially where there is disagreement, might sow the seeds of conflict, confusion or inertia. Rather than bringing people closer, there was a danger of reaping greater distance and division. Yet we wanted to promote understanding and appreciation of each other's positions and perspectives, and we felt that highlighting these complexities would ultimately be helpful. As we have seen, differences and disagreements exist not only between people in the mental health user/survivor movements on the one hand, and the disabled people’s movement on the other, but within those movements too. Moreover, these debates take on a different flavour and importance as they are refracted through diverse welfare contexts. For example, this book includes reflections on the impact of psychiatric colonialism in India; welfare collectivist traditions in Western Europe; and the individual rights focus which has characterised activism in the US. We have tried to build on earlier initiatives (Plumb, 1994; Sayce, 2000; Beresford et al, 2010; Anderson et al, 2012) to create new opportunities for learning in the borderlands of madness, distress and disability. Consciously inhabiting that territory while pulling this book together, we are left with many unanswered questions. Each and every chapter has significantly increased our understanding of the issues. Yet we remain profoundly ambivalent about some of the issues we originally set out to resolve in this book.

This article considers what the Hearing Voices Network can offer to mental health social work. It combines an extensive literature review of voice hearing by Bob Sapey and the expertise by experience of Peter Bullimore who runs a peer support group for voice hearers. Findings The re-framing of auditory hallucinations as voice hearing has significantly changed the way many voice hearers have been able to understand their experience. This new approach to working with voices was developed at the University of Maastricht, principally by social psychiatrist Marius Romme. By moving away from biological explanations of brain disease to psychological understandings of emotions, Romme and his colleagues have found ways of helping people cope with voices, rather than trying to get rid of them through medication. This has led to a network of voice hearing groups throughout the world. There is much of what happens in these groups and within the social psychiatric responses known as the Maastricht approach that can be practiced by social workers. Applications The Maastricht approach to working with voices challenges the basis of pharmacological responses to psychosis and moves beyond anti-psychiatry by offering positive alternatives to the current biomedical treatment of schizophrenia. This approach can be undertaken by experts by experience and mental health professionals. We describe these approaches and argue that in adopting them, social workers can help voice hearers cope both with the content of their voices and the stigmatising responses to being diagnosed with schizophrenia.

This paper reflects on the role of social services departments and social workers in the system of direct payments. By means of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act, 1996, care services can be commissioned directly by the user. Social services departments have a role in setting up the local direct payments system and individual social workers may promote and facilitate its use by disabled people. There are indications from regional evaluations, however, that for a variety of reasons, organizations and their individual employees are sceptical and reluctant to implement this legislation. Given this, together with the government’s commitment to the system as a means of promoting the full citizenship of disabled people, the authors question whether social workers and social services departments have any future in this area of social care.