Psychiatric clinicians and managers increasingly use data to monitor the use of force on psychiatric patients. In this study, we describe how Danish authorities simultaneously emphasise a need for close data monitoring and tell a story of failure: rather than reducing force, they claim that data monitoring of mechanical restraint has simply replaced this type of force with other types. We show here how the official narrative of failure is based on highly selective data practices. It inadequately conveys the efforts of the psychiatric staff, with potentially negative implications for the development of clinical judgment. While the authorities and many clinicians support continued data monitoring, we argue a need to rethink the role of data in relation to force and to better appreciate how data practices affect understandings of expertise. We base our analysis on policy papers and official reports on monitoring practices in Denmark, secondary analysis of data from these monitoring practices, as well as observations from and qualitative interviews with clinical managers, administrators and clinicians. By engaging these policies and practices, we point to a need for a new form of anthropological engagement with the data politics currently shaping psychiatric expertise.
