Chat windows and zoom bombers: virtual boundaries in mental health peer support

Abstract

Mental health peer support is a form of care in which people with mental health conditions provide emotional support and education to fellow individuals in recovery, and it is often offered online. Yet little research has considered the social and ethical consequences of providing peer support virtually. Drawing on qualitative data on peer support at mental health agencies across Ohio, this paper argues that the move to online platforms like Zoom led to concerns around boundaries: the rules within personal relationships between people giving and receiving support. In particular, the shift to virtual delivery of peer support posed new questions around privacy and communication. I assert that understanding boundaries in virtual settings is critically important to the field of disability studies, as scholars, activists, and practitioners document and analyze the nature of interdependent care relationships that unfold across a variety of social contexts.

Points of interest

• Mental health peer support is expanding as a form of care for mental health conditions, yet there is little research on peer support ethics

• ‘Boundaries’ are the rules we set in relationships between people receiving and giving support, which can change in online settings like Zoom

• Ethics concerns in online peer support include privacy and appropriate use of technology for communication

• Researchers and activists should focus on ethics in peer support as an important place where disabled people receive care

Keywords:

• Peer support
• mental health
• boundaries
• mental illness
• interdependence

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the participants of this study who have shared their stories, with special gratitude to those participants who reviewed this manuscript and gave helpful feedback. The author also thanks Dr. Aaron Goldenberg, Dr. Cynthia Kubu, and Maia Dégale-Flanagan for their insight and feedback during the research process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The data presented in this paper was drawn from a study funded by a Making a Difference Grant from the Greenwall Foundation.