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"

Better still, if you’ve been a rape victim you’ve experienced rape.

It would be totally wrong to say that the worker had experience of DV and the victim had lived experience of it. The worker, in this scenario, only has experience of supporting the victims of DV.

OK. To use this example, the worker would have experience of DV. In the many ways it can present, the impact on victims, just how manipulative abusers are. They would also understand why many women don't leave because of their personal experiences.

People who have no experience of it say things like, "Why don't the women just leave?" or, "But what did she do to provoke him?" Because they have no experience of it.

Last weekend, my partner and I went out. A woman who was nearby was being harassed by some bloke trying to get her to dance by pulling her and trying to take her drink from her. We stepped in and stopped him.

My partner has experience of that kind of thing happening. He has seen it happen before. He didn't think it was a one off or an unusual thing to happen.

I have personal experience of that kind of thing happening because it has happened to me.

In my experience - things I have witnessed (often enough times to have formed an opinion or noticed a recurring pattern).

In my personal experience - this happened to me.

I'm a massage therapist.

In my experience, massage can really help reduce the symptoms of certain conditions (such as scoliosis, sciatica, chronic headaches).

I don't have any lived experience of the conditions listed, or how massage affects them. Only professional.

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.

It’s a theoretical term with a specific meaning within academic research. It refers to the kind of knowledge that can be created as a result of direct involvement in something, rather than from indirect involvement. It’s a well established term, not just a fad. The examples you are giving to suggest it’s incorrect rely on it being used in a way that to would be unlikely to be used within research. So while you can technically make it sound strange or unnecessary, it’s mainly due to you using it on false premises.

Again, nonsense. If you’re autistic, you’re autistic. It’s not an experience! I don’t have experience of being female or right handed - I just am those things.

I have only seen it used in health where it has a particular meaning.

You know exactly what people mean you just want to be pedantic and pissed off about the expression because you don't like it. Doesn't make you right just makes you an arse.

Yeah… but of a buzz word. I used to listen to a podcast and one of the hosts came out with “that’s my lived experience walking around a supermarket”. He was wittering on about something completely unimportant like where products are placed. I rolled my eyes, but that was the start of the end of that podcast for me. I don’t listen to it anymore, but more due to a bigger transgression from them.

A quick search of the Oxford English Dictionary has provided these definitions of the word ‘experience’:

“practical contact with and observation of facts or events”

“an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone”

Based on this it would appear the word itself has wider meaning and therefore the way it has, and is being used in the context of this thread is not incorrect.

Of course you can’t have an experience without living it. I have professional, personal and lived experience of mental illness. I have lived through all of these things.

But according to OP I have to say ‘I have experience of living as a person who has suffered with mental health problems’ if I want to differentiate between different kinds of experience. Every time I want to differentiate at work, so probably every day, I have to say ‘people who have experience of living with mental health issues’. No, life is too short thanks.

The issue was /is that people with experience in something were put above/listened more than the people who actually lived through it.

Like a psychologist/therapist/police person saying that in their experience victims of rape act in x way When lived experience tells us that victims act in various ways and there's no "standard".

Or in their professional experience certain doctors ascertained black women have a higher pain threshold and can cope with it better , which then reflected in their practices.

And so on.

To combat this, in certain fields , both sides are starting to be taken in consideration. Both the people with experience in and people with experience of.

They are distinct. Social Science articles demonstratecthis phenomenon. It is not new.
In qualitative phenomenological research, lived experience refers to the first-hand involvement or direct experiences and choices of a given person, and the knowledge that they gain from it, as opposed to the knowledge a given person gains from second-hand or mediated source.[1][2] It is a category of qualitative research together with those that focus on society and culture and those that focus on language and communication.[3]
In the philosophy of Wilhelm Dilthey, the human sciences are based on lived experience, which makes them fundamentally different from the natural sciences, which are considered to be based on scientific experiences.[4] The concept can also be approached from the view that since every experience has both objective and subjective components, it is important for a researcher to understand all aspects of it.[5]
In phenomenological research, lived experiences are the main object of study,[6] but the goal of such research is not to understand individuals' lived experiences as facts, but to determine the understandable meaning of such experiences.[7][8] In addition, lived experience is not about reflecting on an experience while living through it but is recollective, with a given experience being reflected on after it has passed or been lived through.[9]
The term dates back to the 19th century, but its use has increased greatly in recent decades.[10

I have experience of hundreds of different medical problems/surgeries. I don't have lived experience of the vast majority of them. Very simple.

Quite.

People need to stop saying "lived experience" because it makes them sound as if they're trying to be clever by doubling up on the meaning, which creates a tautology, which makes them sound stupid.

"I have lived experience of sleeping in a top-floor penthouse."
"I have experience of sleeping in a penthouse."

If people want emphasis, they should say "wide experience" or "lots of experience" or "deep experience."

"I have lots of experience of sleeping in a penthouse. The views are always amazing."

Much better than:
"I have lived experience of sleeping in a penthouse. The views are always amazing."

Everyone who's slept in a penthouse has lived experience of sleeping in a penthouse. But some might have more experience of it than others. So they should indicate the extent of their experience, instead of describing it as "lived experience," which implies that there are ghosts who've experienced it and only since becoming ghosts, too, since they clearly weren't alive when they experienced it.

Full disclosure: I work as a copy editor in publishing and I'm so fed up with the language being mangled. I bet Shakespeare would HATE the phrase and would write something clever about how marvellous it is that one can have experience without having lived it.

Here are two examples, which should make the difference clear.

1. I have 25+ years' experience in project management.
2. I have never managed a project in French.

Example 2 is lived experience, as opposed to "general" experience. Lived experience is something that has actually happened to you.

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

True, but if you’re autistic your experience of every day discrimination will likely be different to someone who is discriminated against for other characteristics they have, so it’s useful to know the context of that discrimination if/when it occurs. Lived experience is a handy way of understanding the context of someone’s knowledge base.

I have academic qualifications in working with traumatised people, I care for my own children with a trauma history, have decades experience in working with people who have experienced trauma and I have my own experience of significant trauma. Saying I’m an experienced trauma specialist doesn’t cover all the ways in which I understand trauma, and sometimes separating out those different experiences is helpful.

The ‘personal’ or ‘lived’ part is to denote that it’s not any other kind of experience, like professional experience. If you just say ‘experience’ it’s not clear which kind you mean. Not sure what part of that you are unable to understand.

Yes, the word ‘lived’ could technically be applied to professional experience but you’re just wilfully refusing to understand now.

Totally agree. The term "experience" already covers something you lived through, something you "experienced". "Lived experience" is totally redundant and attention grabbing, like using multiple exclamation marks or all caps.

I am totally guilty of doing that in the past, but I am aware I did that for emphasis and to grab attention.

I recently saw a discussion online about school provision for children with ASN. An educator pitched in, being quite derogatory about the opinion of someone that has a child with additional needs.

Someone else replied, and mentioned the parent's lived experience meaning that she knows what works for her child.

Both the educator and the parent have experience of children with ASN, but only one has the kind of lived experience that means they know that child's needs.

If you work as a copy editor, you must surely be aware that some phrases are not technically perfect but are widely in use.

I used to work for a mental health charity and lived experience was an important, useful and meaningful term for people we engaged with. I would have been deeply unimpressed if a content editor had started nitpicking about it.

Full disclosure: I work as a copy editor in publishing and I'm so fed up with the language being mangled.

Its a shame you can’t hear how in health, social work, academia, social sciences it’s an important concept because it doesn’t suit your particular discipline.

I work in a support role, with a team, some who have experience and many others who have lived experience.

Experience - have worked in a role like this before, are trained etc

Lived experience - The staff member has personal experience of living with the issue, either themself or caring for a friend/family member who has the issue.

In our line of work, lived experience is massively valuable. You can read/study whatever for a long time, but having lived experience means you really can understand.

I’m in publishing too! And I absolutely hate it, as do many of my colleagues.

Great. You’re in publishing. This term is not relevant to your field and you have no need to dictate how people who need to use it do.