2.4.4 Inclusive Design – Emancipatory? Participatory?

Current algorithmic and data-driven initiatives in the mental health context are dominated by actors that have the most power, such as large private entities and public institutions, service providers, universities, professional associations, and so on. This concentration of power can mean a lack of digital technology oriented to experience and real-life usage. Sarah Carr writes:

For a fuller discussion of this point see above, Section 1.5 “Elevating the Perspective of People with Lived Experience of Extreme Distress and Disability”. Given that every person could generate ‘data concerning mental health’, a broad cross-section of society should have the opportunity to weigh in on the use of algorithmic and data-driven technology in mental health contexts. However, those with the most at stake tend to be those who have firsthand experience of using mental health services, including those who have been subject to involuntary psychiatric interventions, received a psychiatric diagnosis, or who just live with profound distress, a mental health condition or psychosocial disability. As noted previously, this group should not be viewed merely as another ‘key stakeholder’ but as the primary affected population whose involvement should form a political and ethical orientation underlying all work in this area. ‘Inclusive design’ is often associated with notions of ‘human rights by design’, which will be discussed below regarding human rights law (X)

Photo by Milad Fakurian on Unsplash.