This guest blog by Dr Clementine Hill O’Connor arises from one of a series of SPICe academic fellowships supporting the organisation in its aspiration to increase and improve public participation. This fellowship project, as set out in an initial blog post, sought to answer questions about the ways that lived experience is understood as a form of evidence and how it features in the work of the Scottish Parliament.
This blog gives an overview of the research findings and links to both the final research briefing, and a published volume of the three case studies used in the research.
As with all guest blogs, what follows are the views of the author and not those of SPICe, or of the Scottish Parliament.
Defining lived experience
The Scottish Parliament is increasingly recognising the value of involving people with lived experience in shaping legislation and policy. Specific definitions of lived experience are hard to come by, but in interviews carried out as part of the fellowship project, there was consensus that it can be broadly defined to mean “people with experience of the issue that is the focus of the inquiry, bill or policy under scrutiny”.
There were, however, some interesting reflections from committee members and Parliament staff once they started to unpack some of their assumptions:
I think of lived experience, inevitably my mind goes to people who are downtrodden, finding it difficult, who the system is against.
Committee member
Even you know, professional witnesses often come to their roles like because they have had lived experience. But I think in the minds of Members they will separate that out. Then if we go and find, I don’t know, like a group of survivors or something like that, they will see that as like pure lived experience.
Parliament staff member
Exploring different models of gathering lived experience
As part of the research, three illustrative case studies were developed to provide insight into the opportunities and challenges of embedding lived experience in Parliamentary scrutiny.
These case studies offer in-depth descriptions of some of the many processes through which lived experience features in the work of Parliamentary committees. As well as feeding into the wider research project, these case studies serve as a stand-alone reference tool on the methodology and impact of different lived experience approaches and contexts.
The case studies focus on three specific processes in relation to:
- The Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s inquiry into the Financial Considerations when Leaving an Abusive Relationship.
- The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s Stage 1 scrutiny of the Right to (Addiction) Recovery (Scotland) Bill.
- The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s Stage 1 scrutiny of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.
These case studies were chosen to reflect the variety of different processes involved: one-off engagement sessions, longer term panels, and a new approach to ‘bookending’ inquiries. They illustrate a variety of roles for lived experience as a form of evidence and offer some lessons for future practice.
Broader evidence and reflections on using lived experience
In addition to the case studies, interviews and documentary analysis gave an insight into the more general practice of bringing lived experience into scrutiny processes in the Scottish Parliament. This work highlighted the potential power and impact of lived experience. For instance, committee members described various interactions that had “altered [their] mindset completely”, or “really opened [their] eyes” to an issue and made them say “Oh my God. Of course…”.
Hearing directly from those who have experience of the issue that is under scrutiny also gives committee members the opportunity to understand what a bill or policy decision means for people on a day-to-day basis.
So I think you can have great policies, you know, all of us have policies that we need to implement, but actually, to actually hear when you face those issues…how does it actually work in practice? And what does it feel like in practice?
Committee member
The case study of the inquiry into Financial Considerations when Leaving an Abusive Relationship demonstrates that, when engagement processes work well, those with lived experience can feel positive about their interactions with committees:
I thought they were respectful of us, of our time and also of our experiences. And I think a lot of people aren’t always like they forget that we’ve actually lived through these things. And it’s been really hard and traumatic.
Participant from informal engagement session
Using lived experience safely and effectively
The main research briefing for the fellowship sets out a series of recommendations which arose during the interview process, which, combined with lessons learned from the case studies, highlight opportunities to strengthen the use of lived experience in scrutiny in the future. These reflect the self-stated priorities and needs of participants, MSPs and staff members, as well as research observations, and focus on the need to value lived experience, build capacity, plan effectively and work ethically.
On the latter two points, there are simple practical steps which can be taken. Given the potential risk of re-traumatising those who have been asked to share difficult experiences, it is vital for committees to find the time to carefully consider and plan their approaches to bringing lived experience into their work.
Therefore, looking ahead to the next session of Parliament, the research briefing sets out a series of fundamental questions for committees to ask when they consider engaging with those who have lived experience.
Committees should be clear about why they are seeking lived experience, what knowledge gap they want it to fill, and whether it is fair to ask someone to re-share their experiences. In cases where processes do go ahead, committees need to ask what can be done to publicly document their decision-making process, the interactions and the way in which the process aims to, and does, influence the work of the committee.
There is strong practice already in bringing lived experience to the work of the Scottish Parliament, and having in-house expertise in building community connections, facilitating engagement and working in a trauma-informed way supports this. Reflecting on experience, acknowledging where things could have been done differently, and pausing to consider how lived experience is best used can help the Parliament to continue to grow this work in an ethical, appropriate and impactful way.
Dr Clementine Hill O’Connor, University of Glasgow
If you enjoyed this blog, SPICe’s deliberative democracy timeline blog lists all of the publications and reports related to our deliberative journey.