Survivor knowledge has for a long time been devalued in research, with critics arguing that it places somebody ‘too close’ to their inquiry and so undermines their ability to reach objective conclusions. This view can be seen as an extension of the positioning of positivist research as superior to other forms of knowledge. It is a perspective which invalidates those who often hold the most knowledge about a subject area, as it denies their credibility to know about things which directly impact upon them.
However, survivor knowledge is a key means through which we can harness insights into the ways in which things can be different to build more personable mechanisms for supporting those who may be experiencing distress. Understanding this threatens to disrupt long held notions of what good research entails, painting a picture in which the shorter the distance between the knower and generated knowledge, the less distorted, inaccurate and damaging it is likely to be. This runs counter to the assumptions of ‘scientific’ knowledge, which argue that it is only through a detached reason that we can reach genuine understanding.
The subjugations of certain knowledge relate to ideas of power-knowledge and the ways in which certain understandings are not seen as legitimate, with experiential knowledge in particular only seen as valid when it is corroborated by other means. Whilst it is still necessary to be in some way systematic in order to avoid personal biases clouding judgement, reconsidering the philosophy that sees distance as good and experience as bad could be revelatory for how we undertake social science, particularly where it is expected to intervene in somebody’s life.
It is also worth bearing in mind that all knowledge is open to question, with it often being that certain ‘truths’ only become apparent retrospectively. Whilst all forms of knowledge production can be victim to biases clouding its validity. This is apparent if we consider RCTs, seen by many to be the cornerstone of vigorous research, which have regularly been questioned for being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and the ideological framework in which researchers on such projects operate.
Earmarking a new philosophy for knowledge creation around experiences of distress has practical concerns for the delivery of services and the wider psychiatric system. This is apparent if we consider how interventions are regularly touted as needing to be ‘evidence-based’, and emphasising the significant contributions survivor knowledge can make disrupts what counts as evidence. Something which, taken further, invites practitioners to base interventions more on their relational understanding of a service user than the words in a textbook. An idea which highlights how we can all empathise with others better if we allow ourselves to first get closer to our own experiences by making space to interpret and relate them to others.
Critiques of survivor knowledge
Experiential knowledge has been criticised for only being able to talk about individual experiences. This is particularly the case as each individual can have multiple ways of interpreting their own experiences whilst the ways we talk about this can be complicated, subtle, ambiguous and sometimes unclear. This does not however have to mean that survivor knowledge need be unusable but care needs to be taken in how it is collected, with efforts being made to create a safe situation for people to share their insights in ways that remains close to how it has been felt. This means it is important to reduce the distance between an experience and its interpretation, both in time but also in context. That is, approaching survivor knowledge with scepticism may lead to a clouding of an individual’s perspective and see them adjust their experience or memory in a way that makes the knowledge less valid.