Multiple hats, one truth: Lived experience as knowledge
7 affiliations
- 1Global Mental Health Solutions, Geneva, Switzerland
- 2Amsterdam UMC, Department of Psychiatry, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- 3Justice for Mental Health Association, Beirut, Lebanon
- 4Orygen Global, Caracas, Venezuela
- 5Zambia National Public Health Institute, Lusaka, Zambia
- 6Lille Neuroscience and Cognition Centre (U-1172), Univ Lille, INSERM, CHU Lille, Lille, France
- 7Centre National de Ressources et Résilience pour les psychotraumatismes (CN2R Lille - Paris), Lille, France
Abstract
The global mental health field increasingly recognizes the importance of involving people with lived experience of mental ill-health in research, policy, services, and systems. However, recognition and representation have not consistently translated into meaningful authority. The current essay examines the conceptual and structural questions underlying this gap: what constitutes experiential knowledge; how lived experience is transformed into expertise; how experiential, clinical, academic, and policy knowledge interact; and how institutions can distinguish genuine co-production from symbolic participation or incognito tokenism. Drawing on participatory traditions within and beyond mental health and community-led practice, the essay argues that experiential knowledge is neither a substitute for professional expertise nor subordinate to it. Instead, these forms of knowledge should operate reciprocally, with epistemic authority shifting according to whose knowledge is most relevant to the question at hand. At the same time, the authors distinguish this fluid exchange of epistemic authority from the more entrenched institutional power governing resources, leadership, and decision-making. The essay examines how power, institutional readiness, context, crisis, and intersectional diversity shape whether participation becomes structural or merely symbolic. A case study from Nunavut, Canada, illustrates both the consequences of externally imposed systems and the possibilities created when Indigenous knowledge and authority determine terms of engagement. Practical recommendations for moving from consultation toward co-governance are put forward to support decision-makers within global mental health seeking to operationalize meaningful lived-experience engagement rather than simply endorse it.
Related
- Lived experience of patients following eye enucleation: a phenomenological study in western Iran
- Reframing the lived experience of persistent dizziness: insights from active inference.
- The lived experience of intimate partner violence among first-generation latino immigrants in Southern New Mexico
- Relation-aware dynamic knowledge subgraph enhanced large language models for medical multiple-choice question answering
- Understanding when and how knowledge graphs add value to EHR-based clinical prediction across Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and chronic pain
BibTeX
@article{freel2026multiple,
title = {{Multiple hats, one truth: Lived experience as knowledge}},
author = {Stéfanie Fréel and Sasha Hajj Assaf and Adrián Pérez Ara and Peter Varnum and Naeem Dalal and Emmanuelle Verkest},
journal = {PLOS Mental Health},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pmen.0000676},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmen.0000676},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Multiple hats, one truth: Lived experience as knowledge
AU - Stéfanie Fréel
AU - Sasha Hajj Assaf
AU - Adrián Pérez Ara
AU - Peter Varnum
AU - Naeem Dalal
AU - Emmanuelle Verkest
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/04
JO - PLOS Mental Health
DO - 10.1371/journal.pmen.0000676
UR - https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmen.0000676
AB - The global mental health field increasingly recognizes the importance of involving people with lived experience of mental ill-health in research, policy, services, and systems. However, recognition and representation have not consistently translated into meaningful authority. The current essay examines the conceptual and structural questions underlying this gap: what constitutes experiential knowledge; how lived experience is transformed into expertise; how experiential, clinical, academic, and policy knowledge interact; and how institutions can distinguish genuine co-production from symbolic participation or incognito tokenism. Drawing on participatory traditions within and beyond mental health and community-led practice, the essay argues that experiential knowledge is neither a substitute for professional expertise nor subordinate to it. Instead, these forms of knowledge should operate reciprocally, with epistemic authority shifting according to whose knowledge is most relevant to the question at hand. At the same time, the authors distinguish this fluid exchange of epistemic authority from the more entrenched institutional power governing resources, leadership, and decision-making. The essay examines how power, institutional readiness, context, crisis, and intersectional diversity shape whether participation becomes structural or merely symbolic. A case study from Nunavut, Canada, illustrates both the consequences of externally imposed systems and the possibilities created when Indigenous knowledge and authority determine terms of engagement. Practical recommendations for moving from consultation toward co-governance are put forward to support decision-makers within global mental health seeking to operationalize meaningful lived-experience engagement rather than simply endorse it.
SN - 2837-8156
ER -