Send message to Authors

Paper short abstract

Virtual reality (VR) is gaining legitimacy in Danish psychiatry, moving from niche consumer technology to clinical tool. Drawing on two empirical studies, we show how VR is framed as a solution to mental health challenges and creates a device-centred community of promise around innovation and care.

Paper long abstract

Psychiatry has become a space for digital experimentation and clinical innovation, giving rise to what has been described as a new "neuro-digital complex" (De La Fabián et al. 2023). Unlike other medical subdisciplines, psychiatric treatment and screening are not necessarily dependent on physical presence, making the field particularly open to technologies that alter the spatial and bodily dynamics of therapy. One of these digital technologies is Virtual reality (VR), which displaces interaction from physical into immersive, digital environments. It is increasingly promoted as promising for mental health care as it enables novel forms of screening, treatment and therapeutic interaction in and beyond the clinic. In Denmark, frequently described as one of the most digitalised countries globally (Winthereik et al. 2024), VR is now the object of major clinical trials and increasingly implemented. In this presentation, we draw on two empirical projects exploring different modes of VR use within Danish psychiatry, and examine how this once-marginal device has gained legitimacy and prominence in visions and practices of psychiatric care. We argue that VR’s movement from niche consumer device to psychiatric tool is not simply a story of technological transfer. Rather, it reflects how digital technologies are articulated as solutions to specific mental health problems, while devices themselves participate in shaping new constellations of policy, clinical practice, and technological development. The device brings together heterogeneous actors and expectations around innovation, care, and the future of psychiatric treatment, thereby creating what we conceptualise as a device-centred “community of promise” (Martin et al. 2008).