Written by Selina Wallis, ARC NWC Public Involvement manager.

I recently attended a two-day workshop in London for a lived experience advisory group on recovery histories—a theme close to home. As Public Involvement Manager for ARC NWC and someone with lived experience of complex trauma, I often move between the roles of professional and survivor. This duality can be enriching but also disorienting, and the workshop brought that tension into sharp focus.

While organisers spoke of trauma-informed practice, the reality sometimes missed the mark. Difficult topics—like childhood sexual abuse—when presented by academia, can land differently to those who have experienced them. When research is discussing difficult topics, the only concession suggested to participants can be to “step out,” or “take a break” an approach that can feel like exclusion to trauma survivors. I sit on an ethics committee and I’ve seen this frequently in this arena too. Emotion when speaking about traumatic experiences is normal and expected and shouldn’t be something we are ashamed of or need to hide.

Power dynamics in research and public involvement refer to the uneven distribution of influence and control, particularly concerning the relationship between researchers and the public. Power dynamics in this space were spoken about, but largely unaddressed. Between researchers and contributors, institutions and individuals, real power is at play. For those navigating research spaces from the outside in, this unacknowledged imbalance can be deeply felt, and this can be complicated in those wearing two hats, like researcher/survivors, but also peer and community researchers.

These tensions aren’t new. Many survivor-contributors walk a fine line between sharing valuable insight and protecting their wellbeing. What’s needed are environments that acknowledge trauma’s presence in the body, not just in theory. Survivor knowledge should be valued not just when refined into academic output, but also when expressed through pain, silence, or conflict. These considerations are especially important when working geographical areas of high inequality, deprivation and historical trauma. Tools like implicit bias training, positionality, and structural competency may be used to address power dynamics and explicit reference to addressing equity in research like ARC NWC’s HIAT tool.

Reflecting on this experience, putting myself in the shoes of advisors has heightened my gratitude for our ARC NWC’s lived experience advisors and deepened my appreciation for the generosity, clarity, and courage they bring. They challenge assumptions and bridge the academic and experiential—often holding the emotional labour of making research more human. Their contributions remind us that involvement is not a transaction; it’s a relationship.

If ARC2 is funded, we have an opportunity to build on this foundation—to make involvement more embodied, trauma-responsive, and power-conscious. Here are some potential starting points:
• Prioritise relational safety: Build trust before productivity. Introduce people through stories or values, not titles.
• Address power dynamics: Be transparent about decision-making and influence and use tools to actively address these issues
• Create trauma-responsive spaces: Include grounding practices, emotional check-ins, and alternatives to purely verbal processing.
• Plan support, not just opt-outs: Offer proactive strategies beyond just leaving the room.
• Rethink language: Consider how academic discourse lands with those who’ve lived it.
• Support dual roles: Help those who are both contributors and researchers navigate boundaries and risks.
• Encourage shared reflection: Ask how sessions felt, not just whether they were useful, and use this feedback to plan your work
• Enable inclusion without shame: Address access barriers practically and respectfully.
• Recognise the value of presence: Don’t expect gratitude for inclusion—value what’s being offered.

Lived experience isn’t just data—it’s survival, memory, and resilience. Involvement isn’t just a box to tick or a token gesture—it’s about staying open, honest, and willing to grow. Each time someone is truly heard in a research space, we take a step towards more ethical and human practice. That’s the kind of work worth doing.