Strengthening global mental health research through engagement with structural injustice theories

Abstract

The field of global mental health (GMH) is in transition. Following its emergence in the mid-2000s, the field is currently grappling with critiques concerning the presumed universality of its concepts and approaches; the focus on treatments rather than addressing social determinants of mental health; and a lack of equity between actors in the Global North and South. With the field at this junction, we describe three ways in which structural injustice (SI) theories can respond to calls for change within GMH. Following a brief discussion of key characteristics of SI theories, such as those put forward by Powers and Faden (2006, Social Justice: The Moral Foundations of Public Health and Health Policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019, Structural Injustice: Power, Advantage, and Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press) and Young (2011, Responsibility for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press), we first discuss how they can contribute to GMH by strengthening often-called-for inter- and transdisciplinarity, using well-being as a boundary object or bridging concept. Second, we argue that SI theories can inform data collection and analysis by offering a theoretical lens for analyzing the role of social context in well-being. Third, we discuss the potential benefits of the normative dimensions of SI theory. Engagement with normative dimensions may assist in addressing unfair knowledge practices in GMH. In addition, attention to normative dimensions of SI theories may help to make GMH research more responsive to the deeper-rooted structural determinants of mental health and multi-sectoral strategies to remedy these. We posit that, in this time of transition, SI theories provide a versatile resource to engage in much-needed transformations in the field of GMH.