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"

There's a large and famous book publishing house and a bunch of authors who would disagree with your last sentence, btw.

Still waiting to hear what non-lived experience is.

"Modern social work is based in academic research and theories."

My point is that it shouldn't be. Why do you need academic research, theories, and ideology to figure out that some people need help from social workers? It's faux-academia.

I like to think that behind all the social workers just "doing a job", there are people thinking about things like, why do we have this many children on the at risk register in this area? Are we using the right criteria when we put them on the register? How can we reduce those numbers? Are we supporting parents in the right way? Should we be supporting them, or just the children? What do these different approaches cost? Which ways can we save money? Does this correlate to the best possible outcomes for the children? And so on and so on, and for all other areas of social work. Social work practice and most other jobs should have some academic research behind it.

I don't know if bin collection people know much about vermin control or emissions from household waste, but I expect someone will have done some research on it to come up with guidelines for how frequently or not bin collections should be from a public health perspective versus waste vehicle carbon costs, and what is best practice for councils.

There's research behind pretty much everything these days.

It's taking a step back from practice and thinking about what is done and how and why. What works? What doesn't? How do we know? Are some views being prioritised over others?

Oh yes, I agree. That's why social workers need to go on courses and be educated and qualified in what they do. The aspects you mention above make sense and are germane to being a social worker. But you should see the nonsensical twaddle of the theories and ideologies of social work degrees. It's barely English. Social work should be a vocational training with classroom work encompassing the sensible things you mention. Like many things that have been academified, you shouldn't need a degree for it. Nurses were always trained in nursing via classroom education and on-the-job experience, but now they all have to have degrees. And the universities are making out like bandits.

Yes, very sensible. It would be great if the degrees encompassed what you say. But have you seen a social work textbook? They're total gobbledegook. The academification of social work has given us a barely-legible faux academia.

I haven't seen a social work textbook but I read a really interesting academic paper on 'safe uncertainty' from a social work perspective. It definitely wasn't gobbledegook.

And I know someone who has both studied and taught research-based social work. She's intelligent and wise and sees value in it. I'd take her view based on experience over your opinion based on one American social work textbook.

OK, but I still don't see why you need ideologies, theories, research, paradigms, and qualitative and quantitative research to figure out that people who are homeless/addicted/depressed/can't do their activities of daily living without help, and other vulnerable people, are the same people who need help from social workers. Sounds like the study of the bleeding obvious to me.

Ah yes we’re onto nurses and degrees. That’ll be bingo!!

Making nursing training into a degree creates an expensive barrier to entry. If nurses have managed with nursing training up to now, why do they suddenly need degrees? They probably study the same things as before anyway, but now they're charged a fortune for it.

My point is that it shouldn't be. Why do you need academic research, theories, and ideology to figure out that some people need help from social workers? It's faux-academia.

You need academic research to understand the kind of help that might actually be effective, to understand the balancing of competing rights, to understand and apply an ever complex legislative framework, to think about the many different reasons that people come to need state intervention in their private lives, to understand when that intervention is over reach. You need academic learning to be able to evidence your decision making in a court of law. Where I am social workers routinely find themselves making very complex legal arguments where everyone round the table has a lawyer arguing their case, except the social worker.

We don’t just go into a home for a cup of tea and fill in a form. We’re supporting families, in some cases removing children, in others we’re making decisions the deprive people of their liberty, decisions that have life long impacts on the people we work with. It’s interesting you think we can do that with no theory base, no academic rigour or any legal training.

Again, you clearly have no concept of the role of social work.

It’s been a long time since nursing training was an on the job training, the profession has changed immeasurably since then, as have the training needs.

Because of new tech? Or are nurses taking on more roles that doctors used to do?

I didn't say there should be no classroom-based learning. I said the degrees are over-academic for what is a practical/vocational job.

Also, aren't the degrees a barrier to entry, considering the insane cost of university education now? You used to do vocational training in social work, which also included classroom learning that covered the aspects you mention Now becoming social work is prohibitively expensive for many, which is at odds with the supposedly democratic nature of social work.

How do social workers deprive people of their liberty? Isn't that for the police and then the justice system?

I agree. Basically we used to say 'personal ' experience and now have to say 'lived'.

It sounds wanky.

Could also say "individual experience." Anything but "lived experience."

I agree, op. It's like the dreadful "journey", all the journeys that people are on these days that don't mean travelling!!

PPs have given examples why "experiencing" is different to "lived experience". We used to call this "witnessing" and "experiencing ".

Social work researchers can measure outcomes to see what approaches are effective. You don't need to make up a whole new academic discipline for that.

The OP sounds like Nigel Farage - just shouting away at everything they dont understand or like.

If correct grammar and usage is a Farage thing, then I guess I am like him.

I suppose "lived experience" is OK in a social-work context since probably everyone talks like that and worse. However, the poll results suggest that if you use it in a lay context, 58% of people will think you sound daft or worse. That's worth knowing.

Nursing degrees have been available in the UK since 1960 and it’s been a degree entry profession since 2009. The nursing training they’ve been managing with has been degree level. It’s hardly sudden.

I'm on a journey of self-experience to find my voice and my truth while I stand in my power. 🤭

It's wank speak, there's a ton of it around. It's right up there with corporate speak 'blue sky thinking' and all that shite. It makes people feel highly intelligent and superior because they know the special lingo. I find it odd tbh.