39th Annual Meeting | Call for Papers

April 19–21, 2018

Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice | University of San Diego

Abstract submission deadline: September 27, 2017

This page provides a detailed overview, with links to submit for each category (workshop, symposium, paper, or poster, work-in-progress) at bottom of page. Click here for specific instructions to apply for a trainee fellowship (deadline: November 1, 2017)

What Does “Culture” Mean? Evolving Definitions in Mental Health Service, Training, and Research

The concept of culture has continued to evolve in mental health research and practice, in parallel with critiques of group-based definitions of culture in anthropology and other social sciences. Culture is often reduced to a principal group identity, usually an aspect of the person’s national or racial/ethnic background. In contrast, current definitions of culture in mental health – such as the one presented in the DSM-5 – conceptualize culture as processual, constituting a process of meaning-making that is under the influence of multiple collective influences that combine to constitute a person’s identity. These influences arise from diverse origins, including gender identity, sexual orientation, language, religion and spirituality, occupation, avocation, age, class, national and regional origin, and racialized and/or ethnic identity. Necessarily, every person’s “culture” is a kaleidoscopic mix of these influences, as they become more or less prominent at any given moment, in the presence of some interlocutors and not others, and in relation to what is at stake for the person at the time.

This annual meeting critically explores the implicit (or explicit) definitions of culture that are being used in current mental health research and practice. To what extent are process-based definitions of culture replacing or coexisting alongside more static group background-based definitions? For example, is culture conceptualized uniformly in key components of DSM-5, such as in the Cultural Formulation Interview and the Culture-Related Diagnostic Issues sections of each disorder? How does serious engagement with process-based definitions affect our established practices, such as the usual medical identification of the patient on the basis of age, gender, and race/ethnicity (e.g., “23 year-old black female”)? How does the global spread of mental health interventions potentially perpetuate simplistic notions of culture, to the potential detriment of programs? What role does the family play in creating/recreating these cultural influences? Does it make sense anymore to speak of a person’s “culture” in the singular?

Conference Learning Objectives

After attending this meeting, participants will be able to:

  1. Identify multiple definitions of culture from clinical, social science, and humanities fields and their implications for mental health research and practice.
  2. Discuss theories and concepts relevant to culture, including identity, power, explanatory models, equity, diversity, and meaning-making and their implications in the practice of cultural psychiatry and global mental health.
  3. Describe how various definitions of culture are used in diverse aspects of mental health work, including clinical care, training, advocacy, and research.
  4. Integrate the multiple conceptualizations of culture into the practice of cultural psychiatry and global mental health.

Examples of topics and domains related to the conference theme include the following:

  1. How does the definition of culture that we use vary with context and objectives? What are the multiple definitions of culture that are circulated and enacted in cultural psychiatry and global mental health? How do these definitions vary by our purpose? For example, do the useful definitions vary depending on whether we are doing clinical work with individual patients or whether they are being used in training or research? Or in individual therapies vs family therapies?
  2. Curriculum design and training activities – How do definitions of culture shape, or become shaped by, curriculum design? How do curricula and training programs address the concept of culture, directly or indirectly? What novel curricular structures offer opportunities for clinicians and researchers in training to engage critically and reflexively with notions of culture?
  3. Tensions of group-based vs individual definitions of culture – With increasing shifts away from group-based definitions of culture toward a focus on meaning-making, how is clinical practice affected, if at all? If group-based definitions of mental disorder rely on establishing what is not an “expectable or culturally approved response,” who is doing the “approving” when the definition of culture is based on an individually generated sense of meaning?
  4. How does DSM define culture and how does this influence practice? Is culture conceptualized uniformly in key components of DSM-5, such as in the Cultural Formulation Interview and the Culture-Related Diagnostic Issues sections of each disorder? How do changes in definitions put forward by professional organizations shape changes in practice, and where are the limits/barriers to further change?
  5. Research applications of processual definitions of culture – What research questions are best addressed through processual and meaning-making definitions of culture, e.g. exploring mechanisms through which culture patterns psychopathology, including the generation of cultural concepts of distress that are to some extent consensually determined by the group?
  6. How does the concept of culture relate to disparity-reduction activities? Many training programs have begun to address cultural psychiatry concepts under the umbrella of diversity, equity, and minority curricula. Is this simply a semantic shift? What is potentially lost – in terms of meaning-making, explanatory models, and other core cultural concepts – when we focus on more structural definitions? And what is gained – in terms of social determinants of health, resource inequalities, and other analyses based on institutionalized power relations? How can we best distinguish the “work” of meaning-centered approaches to care and those that focus on redressing health care disparities affecting underserved social groups?
  7. How do definitions of culture shape possibilities for policy-making and advocacy? What assumptions about culture underlie current mental health policy? If culture is best defined according to complex, multifaceted, and process-based definitions, how can we distill these concepts in ways that facilitate communication for advocacy and policy-making efforts? Do such efforts to make culture comprehensible ultimately “short-change” the lived experience of culture and mental health?
  8. Culture as both cause and cure of mental illness – How is culture conceptualized in causal pathways of mental illness (e.g. inability to meet culturally proscribed gender role expectations) and an essential part of its cure (e.g., tribal re-enculturation of American Indian youth as a therapeutic practice)? How do these competing notions of culture as cause and cure create tensions for the practice of cultural psychiatry and global mental health? What is the relationship bewteen culture and health or wellness?

Abstract Submission Categories

Abstract forms can be submitted for Workshops, Symposia, Individual Papers or Posters, Works in Progress, and Trainee Fellowship Papers. Workshops for participants to gain skills in issues related to family and culture are strongly encouraged and will be given priority. Submissions based on qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods primary data and clinical encounters will be given preference over position pieces. Participants are encouraged to submit abstracts early. SSPC will provide technical assistance for abstract submissions up to 48 hours before the deadline.

Please note that concurrent sessions for the 2018 annual meeting will last 1.5 hours, rather than 2 hours as in previous annual meetings. This will allow us to accommodate as many sessions as possible while still providing ample time for discussion and interaction among attendees.

  1. Workshop – Workshops are approximately 1.5 hours long. They should have one organizer and up to four co-facilitators. Workshops are different from symposia in that they are more interactive and are required to have hands-on activities for participants. In addition to an abstract, workshop submissions must include a timeline of activities. Workshop themes should address specific skills, debates, or concepts. Examples include how to train clinicians in the Cultural Formulation Interview and how to adapt screening tools for cross-cultural use.
  2. Symposium – Symposia are approximately 1.5 hours long. A maximum of three original papers may be included, with a recommended presentation time of 15 minutes each. The organizer or moderator may provide introductory remarks on the topic. A discussant may be included if desired. Be sure to allot a minimum of 25 minutes for open discussion.
  3. Individual Papers or Posters – Abstracts may be submitted by individuals indicating preference for paper or poster presentations. Individual papers will be grouped into Paper Sessions by the conference organizers.
  4. Work in Progress – This new category allows individuals or teams the opportunity to receive feedback during the early stages of developing a project, curriculum, therapy approach, clinical service, future SSPC presentation, etc. Abstracts can present preliminary concepts or findings and should include specific topics or questions for discussion. Consultation symposia will be 1.5 hours and include up to 3 presentations, lasting 7-10 minutes, with time dedicated to discussion for each presentation.
  5. Trainee Fellowship Presentations – Trainees in medical or social sciences (masters, MD, PhD, or post-doctoral level) may submit papers for consideration for a fellowship presentation. Up to two fellowships are given each year. SSPC Fellows have registration costs waived and receive a $500 honorarium to offset travel costs.

The deadline for all submission types is September 20, 2017, except for Trainee Fellowship submissions, which have a deadline of November 1, 2017. If you would prefer to submit your materials by email rather than via the website, please contact Bonnie Kaiser, All submissions undergo a multiple-reviewer selection and scoring process. Notification of acceptance or rejection will be sent by early 2018. After notification of acceptance, all presenters, workshop facilitators, and discussants will be required to pay the conference registration fee by February 1st for their submission to be included in the annual meeting.

For additional information, please visit the Annual Meeting page at If you have any questions, please contact: Bonnie Kaiser, Chair of the Program Committee, at; or Liz Kramer, Executive Director, at, phone: (484) 416-3915.

Ends on November 1, 2017

Trainees in medical or social sciences (masters, MD, PhD, or post-doctoral level) may submit papers for consideration for a fellowship presentation. Up to two fellowships are given each year. SSPC Fellows have registration costs waived and receive a $500 honorarium to offset travel costs.

The Charles Hughes Fellowship is an annual award presented to a graduate student who has an interest in and commitment to cultural psychiatry and mental health. Graduate students in anthropology, public health, psychology, and related disciplines are encouraged to apply.

The John Spiegel Fellowship is an annual award presented to a medical student, psychiatry resident, or fellow in subspecialty training in psychiatry who is dedicated to improving clinical care through culturally-informed practice.

Trainees in these fields who are interested in competing for these fellowships should submit the materials listed below by November 1, 2017.

1.    Submission form: The online submission form includes the following information: 

  • Identifying information (name, affiliation, contact information) of applicant; 
  • Title of paper
  • Abstract, composed of three parts:
    • 2–3 learning objectives
    • Narrative abstract, up to 200 words
    • 1–3 related references

2.    Unpublished scholarly paper: An original unpublished scholarly paper on a topic related to "What Does “Culture” Mean? Evolving Definitions in Mental Health Service, Training, and Research."

Key conference themes for culture, mental health, and the family are listed below. Papers are limited to 8,000 words inclusive of abstract, references, and tables. The applicant must be the first author on the paper. Additional authors can be included. Affiliation and contact information should be included for any additional authors.  

3.    Biosketch: A 200-word biographical sketch describing your professional training and activities related to culture, mental health, and family-related issues.

4.    Statement of Professional Commitment: A 250-word statement about your interests and potential commitment to the mission of the Society for the Study of Psychiatry and Culture, and your vision for contribution to the organization. 

5.    CV: Your curriculum vitae.

The recipients of the Charles Hughes and John Spiegel Fellowships will present their papers in a plenary session at the annual meeting in San Diego on April 19–21, 2018. Recipients of the fellowships have all registration fees waived. An honorarium of $500 is provided to help defer travel, lodging, and related costs.

Conference Themes

We welcome Hughes and Spiegel applications in any clinical and research areas of cultural psychiatry. Preference will be given to submissions based on clinical activities and research addressing one of themes highlighted for the 2017 Annual Meeting (see general guidelines for more information on the themes). 

Recommendations for Paper Submissions

Papers submitted for consideration will be peer reviewed. Papers are judged on the following criteria:

  • Original contribution of the trainee – The paper should represent activities conducted by the applicant. First-hand research or clinical activities are required. This may include conducting interviews, ethnographic research, intervention implementation, clinical work, or other related activities. Papers with only secondary data analysis (either quantitative or qualitative) are not eligible for the fellowships.
  • Research or clinical question and contribution to the field – The research or clinical question should be grounded in the literature on culture, mental health, and the family. The question should be novel and have implications for future research and practice. The results of this study should be interpreted in light of the history of culture and mental health research and clinical work. Other areas that will have a contribution to the field such as capacity building for beneficiary communities, providers in cross-cultural settings, and advocacy groups could also be reflected in this score.
  • Ethical conduct – All research projects should include details on IRB approval from the applicant’s home institution as well as IRB approval from the country where research was conducted if the research was carried out outside the United States. Papers that do not have information on appropriate IRB approval will not be considered for review. For clinical cases, IRB approval is not required, but appropriate anonymization practices should be observed in documentation.
  • Methods/analysis – Projects demonstrating high levels of participation in design, implementation, and interpretation with the beneficiary community will be prioritized. Rigorous methods and analysis using best practices in qualitative or quantitative research in culture and mental health are recommended. For qualitative methods – what type of theory was used for coding and theory building (e.g., grounded theory, interpretative phenomenological analysis, content analysis, etc.); was the selection of participants appropriate for a qualitative study; for ethnographic studies, how was participant observation incorporated into the design, etc.? For quantitative studies – were culturally validated instruments used or was there a cultural validation as part of the study; was the sample representative with regard to recruitment and target population; were statistical analyses appropriate for this study design, etc.?

Instructions for Preparing Learning Objectives

Please make sure you use learning objectives, not teaching objectives. Teaching objectives state what you are trying to teach. Learning objectives are what you expect the attendee to know or be able to do after attending your presentation.

The objectives must use action verbs, which allow for the measurement of quantifiable outcomes.  For example, At the conclusion of this presentation learners will be able to:

  1. Define what an action verb is and list three characteristics of it;
  2. Describe two reasons why educational objectives are important;
  3. Discuss the importance of action verbs in preparing measurable educational objectives.

An excellent reference for this task is Robert Major’s Preparing Instructional Objectives, 3rd. edition, available from if not at your local library.

All individual papers must contain two or three learning objectives.

Instructions for Preparing Narrative Abstract

Abstracts should be structured, and they should NOT exceed 200 words, excluding the objectives. Guidelines for preparing structured abstracts, though slightly more detailed than we require, can be found in the Archives of General Psychiatry’s Instructions to Authors section on preparing structured abstracts. 

Abstracts should include the following subsections: (1) Background, (2) Aims/Objectives, (3) Approach/Methods, (4) Results/Proposition, and (5) Conclusion/Implications.

For questions, please contact Bonnie Kaiser, at, or Liz Kramer, Executive Director, at or call her at (484) 416-3915.