Research Proposal Draft

docx

School

University of Central Florida *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1102

Subject

English

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BarristerNewtMaster279

1 Mental Health and Rhetoric Research: Evaluation of the Current Conversation Sophia E. Keller Department of Writing and Rhetoric, University of Central Florida ENC 1102: Composition II Professor Emily Proulx October 10, 2023

2 The Current Conversation of Mental Health Rhetoric Research Introduction While investigating the field of mental health a conversation was apparent in relation to rhetorical research. To preface, a general definition of rhetorical research is the study of communication used in social interactions, specifically that of language and attitude (Heilker & King, 2010). When rhetorical analysis enters the conversation of mental health topics, interactions of psychiatrists and/or patients tend to be studied. Rhetoric has great importance in the field of mental health as it has served to provide insight on patient-doctor interactions, as well as bringing awareness to topics of mental health. Hence, a conversation known as Mental Health and Rhetoric Research (MHRR) has been created to analyze the inner workings of rhetoric in fields of mental health. In this literature review, a report will be given on the evolution of the MHRR perspective, as well as the current conversation of combating underlying mental health stigmas. Moreover, topics will include the shift of perspective from psychiatrist focus (mid 1980’s) to patient focus (current day). It is important to preface that the MHRR conversation is ongoing in terms of analyzing social interactions of people with mental disabilities, through different settings such as clinical settings and online forums. Specifically, this analysis mentioned in later academic articles are utilized to identify ways in which people with mental disabilities can communicate more effectively. Additionally, a current tool to fight this stigma is by giving a voice to people with mental disabilities to share their personal experiences pertaining to mental health stigmas. This is where research has left off today, which begs the question: how can rhetoric be used to combat mental health stigmas of the current day? However, though important to investigate and expand upon the conversation, it is pertinent to build a foundation on the history of MHRR up to the current day.

3 Literature Review Notably, earlier research in the field of MHRR has a different focus of perspective, that being of the psychiatrist level. Thus, “the earlier work focused more on caregivers and their colleagues” while “the later work more on patients and their families” (Reynolds, 2018). Hence, mental health historically during the 1980’s was looked upon differently which is why the conversation of MHRR is different than todays. Specifically, Professor Carol Berkenkotter from the University of Minnesota was one of the first authors to contribute to this conversation. Berkenkotter created a timeline of the narrative in psychiatric history in her book titled “Patient Tales : Case Histories and The Uses of Narrative in Psychiatry”. In this timeline, a new era of biomedicine was introduced in the mid-1980’s where a shift of psychology occurred with the popularity of individual therapy rather than that in a mental institution (Berkenkotter, 2008). The narrative of this new era leads to our current psychiatric practices and builds the foundation of the current MHRR conversation. The evolution of MHRR has four important clusters highlighting the different focus points of research over the last four decades. To establish this timeline Professor J. Fred Reynolds from The City University of New York and The City College highlights major academic articles for each of these cluster periods. To put this timeline in blatant terms: the mid- 1980’s to the mid-1990’s focused on healthcare professional’s rhetoric in textual communication; the mid-1990’s to the mid-2000’s focused on the “progression from psychoanalytic to biomedical thinking and writing”; the 2001-2003 and 2010-2011 clusters focused on analysis used to communicate about patients with mental illnesses/disabilities; and the most recent cluster of 2015-2017 focuses on the stigma surrounding mental health from a rhetorical standpoint (Reynolds, 2018). Therefore, published articles on MHRR have established

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 the timeline of this conversation very clearly, highlighting the evolution of the conversation due to the progression of physiatry practices. Evidently, although psychiatric practices have previously been rhetorically analyzed through textual communication, the conversation has shifted to verbal communication and analyzing social interactions. To further continue this exploration into the current conversation of MHRR, the academic articles that Reynolds makes use of in the later time clusters serve as a large source of text analyzed in this literature review. Hence, within the last decade research has been closely focused on rhetorically analyzing the social interactions of people with mental disabilities and the stigma that surrounds said people. Such that even with proper knowledge of how mental disabilities work from a neurological standpoint, there still seems to be an underlying social stigma. Professionals of the MHRR field have conducted studies to enhance the knowledge on why this stigma exists through both clinical settings and online discussion boards. To dive deeper, Professor Molloy from the University of Delaware and James Madison University further investigates rhetorical strategies used by people with mental illnesses via clinical settings, circa 2015. Molloy concludes to reduce stigma of vulnerable populations, knowledge needs to be made public in regards to two key concepts: recuperative ethos (how those with mental illnesses use language to establish credibility), and agile epistemologies (how people with mental illness use language as a social navigational tool and how to combat everyday stigma) (Molloy, 2015). Essentially, conclusions drawn from the study include the importance of educating the general public on rhetorical performances of stigmatized populations to avoid underlying stigmas. Moreover, another similar study conducted by Professor Holladay from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County analyzes the interpretation of MHRR via online forums. This study concludes that online discussion boards “interpret and manipulate medical knowledge in unique ways that benefit the

5 community” (Holladay, 2017). Moreover, if technical communicators were not only used by researchers but to the advantage of the general public, a new educational tool would be harnessed and could provide a way to reduce underlying stigmas. The flow of new information to keep the general public's knowledge current is crucial to fighting mental health stigmas. With that being said, by utilizing the rhetorical device of pathos, empathy is earned through the sharing of personal experience. Professor Uthappa from Wayne State University articulates a paper that captures the voices of various people that have personally experienced mental health stigmas (Uthappa, 2017). Thus, by building empathy through verbal rhetoric for people who struggle with this stigma personally, the goal is to slowly knock down this underlying perception. Specific to the autism community, studying the rhetorics of autism has proven to be an important task according to researchers Paul Heilker and Jason King. Moreover, this specific group of people with this mental disability tend to lack awareness in social behavior and social cues. Heilker and King explore how rhetoric can be used to analyze how people with autism experience the world and how to better support them. Conclusions drawn highlight the value of teaching members of the autism community rhetorical listening skills, although a vulnerable process, would depolarize disparities or miscommunication in social settings (Heilker & King, 2010). To reiterate, it is crucial to give support to members of mentally disabled communities by educating both sides, either by educating the public through personal stories or educating people with mental disabilities on the inner workings of communication. This emphasizes how relationships are a two way street and both parties need to contribute in order to effectively minimize mental health stigmas. Thus, the conversation of MHRR has been left off as the rhetorical analysis of people with mental disabilities and how communities have an underlying stigma correlated to these

6 groups. To further expand this topic, it is important to continue the analysis of this stigma and how communities can prevent underlying misconceptions when interacting with members of these specific communities. Hence, the question we need to implore to further the conversation of MHRR is: How can rhetoric be used to promote mental health awareness and understanding? And how can rhetoric be used to create more inclusive and supportive communities for people with mental health conditions? Need to change the question to continue exploring the rhetoric used in mental health related pieces. Hence, how popularity and reaching mass audiences on mental health related topics are influential. Need to analyze rhetoric used in these popular media outlets. Analysis of MHRR is still important, so do not necessarily need to take on solving the problem like the original question proposed. Methods On august 30, 2018, author Sally Rooney published an Irish romantic physiological drama novel that would go on to be a bestseller and eventually produce an Emmy nominated television series; this series is known as “Normal People”. Moreover, approximately 64,000 copies of the hardcover book were sold within the first four months of its release and numerous publications ranked it as one of the best books of the 2010’s ( Normal People - Wikipedia ). Hence, due to “Normal Peoples” popularity to the mass public I believe it is crucial to analyze the rhetoric used to portray mental health illnesses of the main characters. *Include what specific group watched/watches the tv show *How the tv show made an impact on this particular group (mainly just mentioned in the book so expand how).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 Methods of Analysis It is pertinent to analyze the rhetoric used to shape and portrait mental illnesses of characters. Perception of these characters' mental health issues is important as they make an impact on how the audience views the character and the certain bias that comes from it. *Figure out how to analyze the movie in a more defined way. Which article can you use as used in the sample paper that includes videos?

8 References Berkenkotter, C. (2008). Patient Tales: Case Histories and the Uses of Narrative in Psychiatry - Part Two: The Era of Biomedicine. University of South Carolina Press . Heilker, P., & King, J. (2010). The Rhetorics of Online Autism Advocacy: A Case for Rhetorical Listening. In S. A. Selber (Ed.), Rhetorics and Technologies: New Directions in Writing and Communication (pp. 113–133). University of South Carolina Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6sj7rd.12. Holladay, D. (2017) Classified Conversations: Psychiatry and Tactical Technical Communication in Online Spaces. Technical Communication Quarterly , 26 (1), 8-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2016.1257744. Molloy, C. (2015) Recuperative Ethos and Agile Epistemologies: Toward a Vernacular Engagement with Mental Illness Ontologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly , 45 (2), 138-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2015.1010125. Reynolds, J.F. (2018). A Short History of Mental Health Rhetoric Research (MHRR). Rhetoric of Health & Medicine, 1 (1), 1-18. www.muse.jhu.edu/article/710560. Uthappa, N. R. (2017) Moving Closer: Speakers with Mental Disabilities, Deep Disclosure, and Agency through Vulnerability. Rhetoric Review , 36 (2), 164-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2017.1282225.

Research Proposal Draft

Related Documents