Lived experience was initially a philosophical term distinguishing between first- and second-hand experience, but its meaning has become more specific and political. It is now understood as the direct experience of marginalised groups, often used with a tone that reflects its weight and authority. 

Lived experience research is a methodology valued in academic and social research for the compelling way it brings marginalised groups to life, ensuring their voices are factored into decisions that affect them. It is methodology that places recognition and reduction of societal and research power imbalances at its core.  

This approach has now crossed the soft border into commercial research, but its meaning in this new context is less clear. 

Some are beginning to use the term to mean any qualitative research. Others apply it when the audience is marginalised, regardless of the research approach employed. Still others advocate for an entirely different skill set, and even suggest that researchers should be members of the group being studied. 

While academic literature explores the meaning and implications of lived experience research in depth, its application in commercial research remains largely uncharted. Although the corporate embrace of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) and brand purpose has blurred distinctions between the commercial and third sectors, substantive ethical and cultural differences remain between the two spheres. The language and underlying assumptions of lived experience research reveal its progressive origins, meaning its transition into commercial research requires careful handling and maximum transparency. 

I want to explore whether a version of lived experience research can retain the richness and spirit of the original model, while aligning with commercial research culture and values. Having briefly explored the academic literature, what synergies and tensions exist between lived experience and commercial research practice? 

Lived experience research implies a distinct audience 

The different audience is of course a defining element of the approach, but our understanding of marginalisation is evolving, as progressive theory enters the mainstream. Some groups may face persistent disadvantage; others might be marginalised only in specific contexts. Today, we might define people with diabetes, or teenage boys influenced by the online ‘manosphere’, as marginalised. 

We should reflect on what the label marginalised brings to qualitative research. While academic researchers may be motivated to champion such groups, commercial researchers often want to balance empathy with objectivity. The label might even unintentionally reinforce a victim narrative, risking compounding existing power imbalances. 

A distinctive researcher–participant relationship 

Qualitative researchers instinctively prioritise participant wellbeing, often exceeding formal ethical guidelines. Lived experience research adds a more politicised lens, placing power imbalance at its centre, encouraging constant researcher reflection on any hidden power dynamics but also tangible attempts to change the participant role. 

Participants are not just sources of information to be mined, but active collaborators and even partners in the project. This may be familiar from co-creation research, but it goes further. 

The literature reveals (at least) a tonal tension between the importance placed on accurate representation on the one hand (as a matter of respect), and the special importance the approach places on analysis and interpretation on the other. This is often resolved by including participants in interpretation, from feedback sessions to full co-production. Some researchers even present participant-generated recommendations in their own words. 

I’d argue that this more active participant role can help counter the risk (mentioned above) of the researcher seeing the marginalised group as victims, and unconsciously adopting a saviour role. 

The findings carry particular weight 

A key debate in lived experience research concerns the status of its findings. Is it still qualitative data, or does it demand a special kind of respect, even deference? 

It seems self-evident that these findings deserve more attention than those from standard qualitative research. Inclusion of excluded voices is a corrective, not an ideology. But respect should not imply reverence. Lived experience research still involves subjective insights from limited samples. The findings offer inspiration and understanding, but cannot stand alone as evidence. 

While challenging the veracity of direct reportage can appear disrespectful, challenging the interpretation or conclusions drawn in the study is legitimate. Respectful challenge is not gaslighting, as some industry voices have suggested. Such a defensive approach is counterproductive as well as counter-intuitive. I’d argue that, in commercial research culture, open discussion of findings is the surest way to ensure engagement and, therefore, impact. 

Who conducts the research? 

Some argue that membership of the marginalised group is more important than formal training or experience, suggesting that shared experience, language and frames of reference create a uniquely empathetic and constructive research environment.

I can certainly see potential benefits in combining internal and external perspectives, and this is something commercial research is already exploring. Still, I suspect many clients would be as uncomfortable as I am with demoting the importance of research expertise. 

A lived experience approach to lived experience research? 

A more robust exploration of these issues is needed, and, of course, one that includes both researchers and participants with direct (lived) experience of such studies. 

Still, the literature suggests to me that there is a place in commercial research for a version of this methodology, albeit in adapted form. There’s a long history of social research methods evolving as they enter the commercial sphere. Whether the differences constitute customisation, improvement, or bastardisation will likely remain a subject for debate.

Peter Totman is qualitative researcher at Jigsaw Research