As lived experience becomes an increasingly important part of the policymaking process in the Scottish Parliament, Dr Clementine Hill O'Connor writes about her current research which examines how this form of evidence is used in practice and how it influences policy decision making.

Blog by Dr Clementine Hill O’Connor

In May 2022 the Scottish Parliaments’ Citizen Participation and Petitions Committee launched a Public Participation Inquiry. The aim was to understand “how people’s voices are heard in the work of the Parliament”. They explored the ways that deliberative approaches to democracy could be embedded in the work of the Scottish Parliament. Since then there has been a growth in activity around the methods and approaches that are used to bring a wider variety of people into the work of the Parliament. Cutting across and through all of these approaches is the idea of ‘lived experience’ – that is the experience of those directly affected by the legislation under scrutiny.

The growth in interest in lived experience in the Scottish Parliament is mirrored across all levels of governance and is an increasingly important component of policymaking processes. It has the potential to address democratic deficits, bringing a more diverse range of perspectives into policymaking, ultimately creating more legitimate decisions because they have public support. It is also understood to bring those directly affected by policy into the process, giving voice to often marginalised groups.

My previous work shows there is significant interest in how to bring such evidence and insights from publics into policymaking, including through lived experience experts and panels. What it is less clear is how this form of evidence is used and integrated into policymaking spaces that are often driven by metrics. Understanding the perspectives of those who commission and use evidence from people with lived experience is key to ensuring that it is incorporated in ways that are both effective and ethical. 

Working with the Scottish Parliament

The Academic Fellowship scheme run by the Scottish Parliament through Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) was an opportunity to expand the focus of my work into the role of parliaments in policymaking and offered a route into interviews with MSPs.

Since January 2025 I have been developing three case studies to explore the processes through which committees engage with people who have lived experience of the issues under scrutiny. This in-depth work is the first of its kind, focusing specifically on;

  1. Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee – Tenants Panel and Landlord Panel as part of Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill
  2. Social Justice and Social Security Committee – work with survivors of domestic abuse on the inquiry into the Financial considerations of leaving an abusive relationship
  3. Health, Social Care and Sports Committee – engagement with people with experience of addiction as part of Stage 1 of the Right to (Addiction) Recovery Bill

This work will answer the following questions:

  1. To what extent is ‘lived experience’ understood as a form of evidence in parliamentary process?
  2. What are the methods and processes through which lived experience features in the work of the Scottish Parliament?
  3. What guidance and/or frameworks can be put into place to support the integration of lived experience into parliamentary business in ways that align with principles of ethical participation and rigorous research practice?

Why this work is important

As interest in lived experience increases it is important that we understand the ask that is being made of people who are offering to contribute their experiences to research, to policymakers, to parliaments. There are numerous toolkits, sets of principles and ways of working to support good quality participation in policymaking. However, less attention has been given to the ways in which this type of evidence influences decision makers. Even with the most ethical and participatory ways of working, there is a limit to how much impact can be achieved if we do not (yet) understand the ways in which people utilise the insights from people sharing their lived experience.

There are important consequences if we get this wrong, the work across ‘The Limitations of Lived Experience’ blog series outlines a range of issues including the co-option of lived experience and the risk that, despite the traumatic experiences that are shared, there is no meaningful change. This work will start to articulate the complex interplay of the impact(s) of different forms of evidence on decision makers and help inform 1) new routes for creating potential change 2) ways to be clearer about the potential for change so informed decisions can be made and realistic expectations are set. The outputs of this work will contribute to the development of content and materials that will support training and development for staff and members in the next session of the parliament. It is anticipated that a framework will be developed to guide decisions about the role of lived experience in parliamentary processes bases on context, resources, and desired outcomes.

Author

Dr Clementine Hill O’Connor is a Research Fellow in the Division for Social and Urban Policy at University of Glasgow, and an Affiliated Researcher at the Centre for Public Policy. Her expertise is on the role of citizens and citizen voices in policy-making processes, public engagement as evidence and gendered responses to welfare conditionality.

Follow Dr Clementine Hill O'Connor on Bluesky

Preview image by Maja R. on Unsplash

First published: 19 May 2025

<< News and insights