Episode Details

What does lived experience really mean? Should lived experience be given the same status as scientific studies? Could it sometimes be used as a shield, preventing ideas from being challenged? Have clinicians historically ignored lived experience, and how can we redress the balance?

Talking about these questions is difficult, and Paul Hutton knows that directly. When he started posting about the complexities of working with lived experience on LinkedIn, he was surprised by the strength of the response he got.

As a result, we invited him on to the pod.

In this conversation, Paul told us why he thinks it could be dangerous to use lived experience to form general beliefs about the world, but also thinks it’s essential that lived experience is listened to, and used to generate new hypotheses. He highlights the importance of empirical evidence - and also how evidence-based practice has historically ignored lived experience.

We discussed how difficult professionals find it to challenge something framed as lived experience, and how this is sometimes exploited by researchers and those who do not want their ideas to be scrutinised.

This episode, like the previous one with Susie Colbert, explores some of the parallels (and differences) between what has been happening in neurodiversity, and what has happened already in the field of psychosis. Paul brings a great depth of research and clinical knowledge. We hope you enjoy the conversation.