In policy, philanthropy, and activist circles, the role of lived experience is under increasing scrutiny.
Can personal testimony shape systems change? Is it enough to guide solutions? Should it replace scientific or technical expertise? These questions are especially pressing in movements to end violence, trauma, stigma, and injustice.
As a public survivor of child sexual abuse—and as someone with experience as a scientist, policymaker, and advocate—I’ve spent over 25 years navigating the intersection of personal experience and institutional response.
I hold a PhD in counseling psychology, I started my career on Capitol Hill, advising on policy, served in leadership roles at UNICEF and the U.S. Department of State, and now lead Together for Girls, a global partnership to end violence against children and adolescents.
In 2022, along with 13 other survivor leaders from around the world, I founded the Brave Movement to elevate survivor leadership and voice, and to drive political action around the world.
Through this work, I’ve seen firsthand the harm of false binaries: lived experience vs. science, personal testimony vs. data, survivor leadership vs. institutional expertise. These are unhelpful framings. Social change doesn’t require choosing one form of knowledge over another—we need to integrate them.
A triad of knowledge for systems change
Effective, sustainable solutions emerge from a triad of knowledge:
- Scientific evidence: We need to know what works. Rigorous research tells us which interventions prevent violence, support healing, and deliver justice. Science brings clarity, accountability, objectivity, and direction.
Learn more about the Data to Action process
- Practice-based expertise: From policymaking to implementation, practitioners—advocates, social workers, civil servants—carry deep knowledge of how systems function and how to navigate complexity.
Learn more about practice-based expertise
- Lived experience: Survivors and others with direct experience reveal gaps in policy, challenge assumptions, and break silence and stigma. When engaged meaningfully—not symbolically—lived experience makes solutions more just, effective, and relevant.
Learn more about the transformative power of lived experience
While this triad emerged from our work to address violence, its relevance extends far beyond. From HIV prevention to road safety, from racial equity to supporting landmine survivors, this integrated model can inform more inclusive and impactful responses to a wide range of social issues.
Lived experience should not replace science or practice—it must be integrated with them. That is the point.
Survivor leadership doesn't equal survivor exceptionalism
Too often, survivor leadership is mischaracterized as a call to displace technical expertise. That is not the demand. We seek inclusion as equal partners—respected for the unique perspective we bring, not elevated as moral authorities or substitutes for evidence-based decision-making.
Recently, we launched a global, survivor-centered framework built from hundreds of conversations with survivors around the world. It calls for action across three interconnected pillars: prevention, healing, and justice. These pillars are not linear or optional—they must be addressed together. The framework is already informing global institutions, including the upcoming Lancet Commission on Child Maltreatment and Gender-Based Violence.
This model does not discard research or institutional knowledge—it strengthens them by grounding them in lived realities. It challenges systems that have long excluded the people most impacted by violence from shaping the policies and practices that affect their lives.
Moving from scarcity to abundance
There are signs that this integrated approach is gaining traction. Germany recently established the world’s first national survivor council formally linked to government policy-making. The governments of the UK and France are exploring similar models. These efforts reflect cross-sector collaboration—not survivor leadership in isolation.
Still, too many debates about knowledge and leadership are rooted in scarcity: Who gets to speak? Who gets to lead? But real progress requires an abundance mindset. When we bring together science, practice, and lived experience, we create stronger policies and programs, more impactful movements, and deeper change.
The question isn’t whether lived experience should be included in decision-making. The real question is: Are we creating the conditions for survivors, scientists, and practitioners to collaborate and contribute their unique expertise–with equity, trust, and shared purpose? The future of prevention, healing, and justice depends on it.