{"id":147,"date":"2017-08-08T10:56:18","date_gmt":"2017-08-08T10:56:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/skape\/?p=147"},"modified":"2017-11-25T16:01:00","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T16:01:00","slug":"the-expertise-of-experts-by-experience-struggles-over-experience-based-knowledge-in-finnish-participatory-arrangements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk\/skape\/2017\/08\/08\/the-expertise-of-experts-by-experience-struggles-over-experience-based-knowledge-in-finnish-participatory-arrangements\/","title":{"rendered":"The expertise of experts-by-experience \u2013 Struggles over experience-based knowledge in Finnish participatory arrangements"},"content":{"rendered":"

Taina Meriluoto<\/a>, University of Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4, Finland, taina.meriluoto@jyu.fi<\/a><\/h4>\n

This blog post is based on a talk at the SKAPE lunchtime seminar on July 5th<\/sup> 2017.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In early 2010\u2019s, I was employed in a Finnish Civil Society Organisation working within the social welfare sector. I was in charge of a project whose objective was to \u2018bring the organisation back to its roots\u2019 \u2013 to remind a deeply professionalized organisation about the value of volunteers and members, and more profoundly, introduce \u2018a participatory approach\u2019 in the organisation\u2019s core activities. As a means to engage the organisations\u2019 beneficiaries \u2013 and perhaps more importantly, to influence our colleagues\u2019 way of working \u2013 we introduced the notion of \u2018experts-by-experience\u2019 into the organisation\u2019s vocabulary.<\/p>\n

For four years onwards, I was deep into developing expertise-by-experience in this organisation. I met truly amazing survivors, whose point of view definitely deserved to be included and heard. However, at the same time, I grew increasingly concerned. The idea of expertise-by-experience was introduced by us, the organisation\u2019s practitioners. It stemmed both from our commitment to the inclusive values of civil society, but also from what we thought our funder was expecting of us. As one of my later interviewees put it, she \u2018didn\u2019t want to become an expert-by-experience, she was rather made into one\u2019<\/em>. This was decidedly not a bottom-up initiative. It was not about the people \u2018fighting to get their voices heard\u2019. Instead, it was about us wanting to show that we listen.<\/p>\n

In addition, quite a few of my colleagues expressed a strong urge to contain and limit either the issues the experts-by-experience would be allowed to discuss, or the scope of who should be allowed to act as an expert-by-experience. When I discussed the idea with one colleague, she acclaimed in slight horror: \u2018But [if we were to listen to everyone] then there\u2019s no telling what kind of ideas they might have!<\/em>\u2019 Participation and inclusion appeared scary, and the response was to set up standards, guidelines, rules and recommendations that made the \u2018wild and uncontrollable\u2019 participation manageable.<\/p>\n

Finally, it was the notion of expertise that baffled me. Why do we need to call these people experts to be able to listen to them? As it later turned out, I was definitely not the only one perplexed by the concept. As I then began finding out, the aspect of \u2018making experts\u2019 was a very crucial tool in the initiatives as they constructed their participants as subjects.<\/p>\n

In large part as a result of this bafflement, I have since studied expertise-by-experience in the Finnish social welfare sector as a PhD research project. I have interviewed both experts-by-experience, practitioners and policymakers, and analysed policy documents that provided the impetus for developing expertise-by-experience within the Finnish social welfare. I have focused most of all on the governmental aspect of \u2018making experts\u2019: What characterizes the subjectivities created through crafting \u2018experts-by-experience\u2019? What kind of participation and \u2018way of being\u2019 is encouraged and made feasible? Through which practices the participants are constructed as experts? And finally, how do the participants respond to and engage with their subjectivization? This blog post summarizes some of my key findings. But first, a brief note on context and background.<\/p>\n

The peculiarities of Finnish experts-by-experience<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the Finnish context, the term expert-by-experience is used to refer to people with prior social problems, who have been invited to act as \u2018experts\u2019 in CSO\u2019s and public sector organisations. The term was introduced in the Finnish context by mental health organisations, following the introduction of a strong participatory emphasis on the Finnish social policy outlines (see, e.g. National Development Programme for Social Welfare and Health Care<\/u> (Kaste) http:\/\/stm.fi\/en\/kaste-progamme<\/a>). Now, it is a hugely popular concept, and an approach that is largely developed in projects \u2013 both in the public and the third sector.<\/p>\n

Despite its popularity, the term remains ambiguous and is used to signify a variety of people and activities. Most commonly, the experts-by-experience act as<\/p>\n