Policy & Politics Journal Blog

by Clementine Hill O’Connor and Hayley Bennett

In a recent article published in Policy & Politics, Clementine Hill O’Connor and Hayley Bennett examine how “lived experience” has become increasingly important in anti-poverty policy making, and ask what it means to treat such experiences as a form of evidence. They argue that, while lived experience is often presented as a movement-led, democratic challenge to established forms of expertise, it is also shaped by governance-led processes that channel participation into institutional priorities.

The article draws on participatory governance literature to propose a “governance-driven” lens for understanding how lived experience enters policy processes. This approach highlights how governments and policy elites design participatory instruments that may use the language of participation and deliberation, but often adapt these processes to meet specific institutional needs for evidence. The authors argue that this governance-driven perspective helps make sense of both the potential and the limitations of embedding lived experience in policy making.

To illustrate this, the article explores three examples from Scotland: the People’s Panel for Wellbeing, the Social Security Experience Panels, and the Social Renewal Advisory Board. Each provides insights into the different ways policymakers have framed and used lived experience.. In the People’s Panel, participants’ reflections on the pandemic were treated as qualitative data to supplement official evidence. The Social Security Experience Panels show how lived experience can be instrumentalised as user-testing and data collection in the development of bureaucratic processes. Meanwhile, the Social Renewal Advisory Board framed lived experience knowledge as engagement activities, but its open-ended approach made it difficult to translate insights into concrete policy outcomes.

Taken together, these examples show how lived experience can be valued as authentic knowledge, but also how it becomes reshaped by institutional norms. Policy makers may appreciate its richness, yet still apply expectations of representativeness or evidence standards drawn from existing evidence cultures and practices. This creates tensions: if lived experience is created or treated as just another form of data, there is a risk of undermining its democratic and emancipatory potential, while also potentially devaluing the contributions of participants.

The authors conclude that a governance-driven perspective allows researchers and practitioners to distinguish between movement-led and institution-led mobilisations of lived experience. It highlights how policy elites translate lived experience into outputs that fit organisational requirements, and how this process influences the value placed on experiential knowledge. They suggest that acknowledging these dynamics is crucial if lived experience is to be used effectively and ethically as evidence in anti-poverty policy.

This article makes an important contribution to debates on participatory governance and evidence use. By situating lived experience within broader discussions of power, knowledge, and institutional practice, it offers both conceptual clarity and a critical lens for understanding a participatory turn that is often celebrated but rarely scrutinised.

…

You can read the original research in Policy & Politics at

O’Connor, C.H. and Bennett, H. (2025). Lived experience as evidence in anti-poverty policy making: a governance-driven perspective. Policy & Politics, pp.1–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736y2025d000000078.

If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading

Piddington, G., MacKillop, E. and Downe, J. (2024). Do policy actors have different views of what constitutes evidence in policymaking? Policy and politics, 52, 2, pp.239–258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736y2024d000000032.

Parry, L.J., Curato, N. and Dryzek, J.S. (2024). Governance of deliberative mini-publics: emerging consensus and divergent views. Policy & Politics, pp.1–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736y2024d000000043.