General framework 

This project proposes an interdisciplinary methodological approach to the recovery of the self in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The project has two complementary objectives: 

    to acquire qualitative data on recovery experience 
    to design a theoretical model of recovery 

The major challenge of this project is to bring together different methodological paradigms, coming from philosophy, human and social sciences and clinical psychiatry, and to integrate at all stages the experience of the people living with SSDs, both in the collection of data and in the theoretical development. To this end, we have built the project along two axes (one theoretical and the other empirical) that will progress with their own stages and objectives. A third methodological and coordinational axis concerns the project management and the organization of the theoretical-empirical intertwining at all stages of the project. It is important to note that the first two axes are equally divided within the two teams in order to foster the synergy between theoretical and empirical research.

Our (peer)interdisciplinary approach

Why do we call ourselves “(peer)interdisciplinary” in terms of collaborative project?
We work on an interdisciplinary basis as experts from the fields of psychiatry, anthropology, philosophy and psychology - through study, training or our own existential (crisis) experience.
With the term (peer)interdisciplinary we propose to reflect on the participatory dimension of our collaboration. However, we decided to be modest about the participatory dimension of our research. During our discussions on this topic, some of us were feeling powerless regarding the topic of collaborative research, especially regarding the fact that due to the ratio of peer researchers and other researchers (2/12) the participatory dimension of the project is extremely fragile  in our case. We also feel concerned regarding the fact that power dynamics tend to be hidden, which is, why we want to explain what we have in mind while calling our collaboration “(peer)interdisciplinary”.

(1) we appropriate the interdisciplinary concept and give it a new meaning by recognizing expertise as a discipline. In this sense, interdisciplinarity is also a crossroads of different perspectives on a same phenomenon (scientific and theoretical perspective, in the third person, and experiential perspective, in the first person);

(2) we value interdisciplinarity in studying the experiential recovery of schizophrenia, not with the aim of achieving a unified knowledge, but of multiplying perspectives and viewpoints to account for the complexity of this phenomenon.

We are using the term in the sense that it involves several disciplines and expertise, which implies that we are considering experience as expertise and as a discipline on its own.
It is nevertheless important to point out, that experiencing something does not make us professionals or experts by itself. Indeed, we can experience something without reflecting on it and even after reflecting we do not necessarily understand what had happened to us nor do we necessarily know what to do with our knowledge, understandings or experience. So not all people who have experienced a psychiatric disorder are professionals. That is why it is important to organize and to recognize the peer-researcher world as a separate discipline.

Recognizing experience as expertise or discipline can be seen as a starting point but also as an endpoint to reach.

We consider these questions as an invitation for an ongoing reflection.