I’m finally giving a deep read to the Butterfly Longitudinal Research (BLR) study released by Chab Dai. I am grateful that this was written and completed, and I am also annoyed and a bit irritated.
As a researcher myself, I understand the need to validate statements so they are not just pure opinion. I also understand how useful it is to be able to cite someone who has said something you “believe” to be true, but aren’t sure there is sufficient evidence.
To be clear for the ontologists and epistemologists reading this, I don’t believe that researchers have unmediated access to the world and we will always be approaching the “complete” knowledge that might be possible to achieve about the world. So yes, we need lots of people doing the same studies over and over, replicating, and confirming conclusions. We need people looking at phenomena from all angles and standpoints.
However, it sometimes irritates me that was have to spend so much time and so much money to validate statements that have been made by survivors - people with lived experience - time and time again. It also irritates me, that often, a lot of my projects to educate non-survivor allies about how to engage with survivors is about basic human respect.
The number one theme that came out of the recommendations from survivors in the study was:
PROMOTE CLIENT AGENCY AND ADOPT AN EMPOWERMENT- BASED APPROACH.
Shocker? Not really.
The first words of the recommendations under this theme are:
Listen
Facilitate
Be careful
Don’t force
Provide services individualized
In 2020, two decades after the Palermo Protocol and the TVPA, 94 years after the 1926 Slavery Convention, we are still needing to remind practitioners “Don’t force people…..” to do anything?!?
[To be fair, the paper was published in 2018. And again, I want to reassure everyone of my commitment and full belief in formal, academic research. I also want to reassure my colleagues at Chab Dai, and researchers who led the project that I am genuninely grateful that you have completed what I know as the only longitudinal study on survivors’ experiences and I can now cite your paper. Of course, as you’ll know, it will still be considered grey literature. ]
It is in these moments that I am reminded of why survivors don’t want to go into this field.
Those of you who know me even a little bit - who’ve seen me speak or present - know that I am really in this work with you. I don’t shy away from being challenging, but I also don’t bulldoze people for being ignorant (and I’m pretty confident that this is true.)
So, as I proactively push the anti-slavery and anti-trafficking fields to include people with lived experience, and as I encourage and support survivors to pursue this work, I am asking us to accelerate the application of our learning.
Please read this study and then, instead of assuming you are already meeting these recommendations, take a closer look and make a plan to
(1) do something different
(2) make sure you don’t become complacent, and/or
(3) help someone else do differently.
Here are some important highlights from the recommendations:
Listen to clients and be receptive to their input.
Trust clients more.
Facilitate client participation in decision making and planning about their own lives. [emphasis mine]
Don’t punish or threaten clients when they make mistakes.
Be mindful of clients’ trauma histories and engage with clients in a trauma-informed manner.