To HATE the phrase "lived experience"?

[ThisFluentBiscuit]

Pet peeve incoming:

By definition, experience is lived! You can hardly have an experience without living it, fgs! And what's the opposite of lived experience? An experience that you've had, yet haven't lived? It's complete nonsense. It's used to sound falsely clever when an argument is weak, like "In my personal experience." Well, of course your experience is personal! You would hardly say, "In my neighbour's experience, I find Florida too cold in December."

And it's officially wrong, because it's a tautology. Like "top-floor penthouse."

I don't know whether it's the innate stupidity of the phrase or the fact that it's a linguistic fad that annoys me the most.

"stamps off"

You can. But the normal use of experience in the professional setting would be that they had experience of working with the condition so lived experience is to contrast with that

I was with you OP but actually this makes sense

I prefer the phrase “First hand experience” which we used to use

Agree- the post about the “autism ambassador” is arrogant in the extreme. How dare @ThisFluentBiscuit authoritatively tell people what these roles should be called 😡

I think you make a great point here. It is also exemplified by the term 'experts by experience' which some seem to be pushing in the NHS (although the last person introduced as this on a training course I was on laughed it off and said he doesn't feel like an expert in X just because he's one of many people who have it). It seems that NHS trusts are so desperate to have people with 'lived experience' involved in policy-making and research that they give huge weight to the views of anyone prepared to get involved at all. It reminds me of how people on school Parents' Associations are very rarely representative of the views of most parents and people who become local counsellors rarely represent the views of most actual people living in that area. By virtue of being well enough or having enough time to participate, these people are not representative.

It does not. The reporter has experience of reporting from a war zone. The local has experience of their country being at war.

We do not need this abominable tautology of "lived experience" to accurately express our meaning.

For health and social care, it’s irrelevant who is right and wrong, correct or incorrect here.

If we reverted to just considering and talking about “x person on the guideline having experience of that condition”, we would end up back in a situation where one (likely medical person) would represent the experience. People would consider “experience of” as shorthand for professional or lived experience.

The important thing is the outcome. We want broad involvement in designing services. The current situation of using the term lived experience works to achieve the desired outcome. Would you prefer that your “correct” use of language is used and the unintended consequence of decreased representation is the outcome?

I haven't read the full thread because I got infuriated

'Lived experience' is generally used for experiences which have some negative elements, generally which also involve some involvement with professionals. So autism, homelessness, being in care, mental health.

The person who is living in that situation has a specific perspective and understanding which is useful. This has historically not been recognised, acknowledged or heard. Talking about 'lived experience' is a way of identifying this different type of experience and knowledge, making it visible and showing its value.

It's not universally applicable. So you wouldn't talk about 'lived experience of cruising' because there aren't those negative connotations. You aren't dealing with a state employee to get access to it. Similarly, there is no statutory duty to provide anyone with a penthouse. 'Experiencing' a penthouse doesn't have a negative impact on your life chances.

People with lived experience aren't always right. Their knowledge is anecdotal. As long as it is understood as qualitative and unrepresentative, it is useful. Having someone involved in making decisions who knows what it can feel like to be in your position is incredibly helpful.

'Lived experience' is a really clunky and unpleasant phrase. I can understand why copy editors would hate it. But that doesn't mean it isn't useful.

You think that making a list of suggested alternatives is authoritatively telling people what these roles should be called? What people? How authoritative is a list of suggestions?

Go back to bed!

There is also my truth, your truth and the truth. ‘Personal experience’ is more accurate it is how a person experiences something and not necessarily how they actually ‘lived’ it. The two may completely overlap or have very little in common. The lived reality might be that they were spoken to calmly and treated within minutes with the best treatment. Their personal experience as a drug seeker might be that the staff were obstructive, the wait long and they were denied proper pain medication. The latter might be helpful information but it is their personal experience, to call it lived experience suggests a more unbiased view of what happened.

You can say what you like. My point is that 'lived experience' refers to a category of knowledge, different from 'professional/academic/bystander experience'. It's a shorthand. You don't need to use it because presumably in your line of work you don't need to distinguish between types of knowledge. As I said, not a phrase meant for general usage, it has a specific application in critical writing.

SS make an effort to say that someone is "experiencing homelessness" rather than "is homeless." That's much better than referring to a "lived experience" of homelessness. The former doesn't involve bad English.

The fact that it's used in a specific setting doesn't mean it's good or accurate English. There are other ways to express what is meant other than by resorting to tautologies.

You are being ridiculously petulant. You don't like the phrase. That's clear. You've been told by lots of people why it has been useful in specific contexts and what it means. Move on now.

It's an established phrase, with a specific meaning that isn't, as has been explained to you, tautological. Not sure why you are doubling down here but it's a bit embarassing to watch.

There is only one truth. Otherwise it wouldn't be the truth, would it?

It is precisely because people (professionals and relatives etc.) use the short hand "I have 10 years experience of autism / mental illness/disability etc. " that those with direct experience have needed to define their own experience as lived.
It's not simply a fad, it's a necessity. You can't police the language of others so you have to use your own language to make the distinction.

//

Yes I think I agree.

Not one person has been able to explain to me how "lived experience" is not a tautology. By definition, experience is lived. Tell me how you can get experience without living it? I would love to know. Then I could experience sailing round the world without leaving the sofa!

I understand that the phrase is used in specific settings. It's still bad English.

My biggest objection is that it becomes ‘tick box’ that legitimises actions/policies which should be subject to broad consultation or research, or (in the case of the destruction of women’s rights) a lawyer vetoing it as it is illegal.

Yes, and I've explained in many different ways and given many different examples of why it's weak, bad English. The fact that it's used in certain settings doesn't change that.

nonsense. If you’re autistic, you’re autistic. It’s not an experience!

//

Yes and for a support to leader who isn't autistic but says they have experience of autism can be misleading as they only have experience of witnessing someone's else's experience.

But how do you find it?

Language is a wonderful thing OP - it evolves over time. In this instance, multiple people have explained why this is a really useful phrase in their professions (principally medical and social care) to avoid lengthier sentences and explanations. But seem quite hung up on your examples of penthouses and cruise ships and an absolute insistence that you must be right.

If it’s not helpful to you - don’t use it - but it’s odd to get so irate about something you don’t understand and is helpful to patients/clients/medics/carers and many others.

It’s not just used, it’s helpful for the desired outcome.

It is not helpful because it is both misleading and suggests that implied suggestion that that person is representation of other’s.

I'll pop up here the need for tagging the word "super" before everything.