Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

This study seeks to understand the composition, use and cultural orientation of mental health evidence within the UK’s refugee status determination (RSD) process, focusing specifically on mental health evidence provided in the form of a medico-legal report (MLR). By exploring those themes, this paper also strives to provide insight into what constitutes “valid” medical evidence in the context of RSD. Employing a constructivist paradigm, the study is based on 14 interviews with individuals involved in the production of mental health evidence, analysis of documents providing guidance about the production of MLRs, and analysis of MLRs themselves. It is argued that the “validity” of an MLR is based on the one hand on the perceived credibility of MLRs, and on the other hand on the perceived veracity of the mental health information it contains. The perception that evidence is “valid” can be seen as proportionate to the extent to which the report author is considered to be credible and able to frame and articulate information in a “neutral and objective way”. However, this “objectivity” is an expression of a particular, culturally specific conception of mental health; one that is framed within a Western, biomedical paradigm. As such, the MLR author has a de facto role of structuring and channelling a range of cross-cultural information into a particular, culturally specific model.

More information

Type

Working paper

Publisher

Refugee Studies Centre

Publication Date

16/06/2014

Volume

100

Total pages

24