Table of contents
WHAT EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE FOR WHICH USES?
FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, OR PEERJECTIVE EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE
INTERNATIONAL AND INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE FROM MAY 25 TO 26, 2023
CITIZENS’ FORUM ON MAY 27, 2023
Rennes
Scientific conference & citizen forum rationale
The experience of the same situation or phenomenon, the same ordeal, or the same health problem can vary considerably from one person to another (Blume, 2017). Experience is singular and personal. But, is it only that?
Experience is also comprised of facts which are supposedly objective and easily shared by all. For example: a physical therapist’s overall or the wheel of a wheelchair. Experience also includes all the learning internalized from an early age that has enabled an individual to live in a shared reality with others. The internalization of colors, the variety of textures and materials, language, values, and norms, etc. happened in relation to others, not just on our own. The relationship to the world, ourselves, and others is something which has been learned and socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). The experience is still being innervated by a great deal of learnings gleaned from discussions with other individuals, watching documentaries or reading, and from meeting professionals, doctors, and social workers, etc. The individual experience is, therefore, based on a range of sources that go far beyond the person living it. The point could also be summed up like this: personal experience is mainly built on intersubjective, shared knowledge (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), or, in other words – common sense.
A turning point in the way experience is considered in the humanities and social sciences occurred in the 80s and 90s (Prior, 2003). Until then, research concentrated mainly on secular belief and social representations, particularly in the healthcare sector. Ever since, numerous research and publications have focused on secular knowledge and know-how (Prior, 2003). Even more recently, scientific publications have ceased to designate such knowledge based on its exteriority to science. A switch has been made from secular to “experiential knowledge” (Borkman, 1976). This mostly refers to knowledge from lived experience of a chronic illnesses, mental health disorder, or a disabling situation, and other rare experiences such as migration, extreme poverty, and life on the street, etc. The rare knowledge we are interested in can be derived from these experiences.
Since the 2010s in France, the professional and political sectors are interested in rare experiential knowledge. Numerous experiments are currently being held at local and national levels. Using this rare experiential knowledge relies on numerous givens which are infrequently called into question (Blume, 2017). Is all this knowledge useful? Is it relevant? Is it valid?
Moreover, this raises numerous practical problems. Firstly, on an individual level. Does one person’s experiential knowledge mean that he/she can speak for a peer community? How should a peer representative be chosen? And, on what behalf? One person’s experiential knowledge may contradict that of another person in a similar situation. Should individual experiential knowledge be ranked? If so, on what basis? Or, on the contrary, should it be thought that all experiential knowledge basically has the same value? That it is only valid, in any case, for one person?
The idea of ranking experiential knowledge also arises on a group level. Could it be said that one peer group may have more experiential knowledge than another. Or, could it be said that some group’s experiential knowledge is more useful, relevant, or valid than that of other groups? Could it be said that the experiential knowledge of peer support group participants is more relevant than those of their loved ones, or the opposite? And if this isn’t possible, what should be done when different people’s experiential knowledge implies contradictory action?
The same question also arises on an organizational or political level. What experiential knowledge can be used to improve the quality of a service offer or draw up a public policy? It has been reported that experiential learning has been put into competition. Scientific publications even reveal that industrial lobbies for the healthcare sector take initiatives to encourage the development, or on the contrary, diminish the influence of patient movements (O’Donovan, 2007; Rothman et al., 2011).
It is important to raise this debate today. What experiential knowledge do we need? More precisely, we are interested in understanding the benefits of individual, group, or peerjective experiential learnings (Gardien, 2020). What can be done with them? By and for whom?
2023 EXPAIRs conference and forum website
https://expairs2023.sciencesconf.org