Introduction

Domestic and family violence against women is highly prevalent, but difficult to address. Encompassing a broad gamut of behaviors, prevalence rates of violence perpetrated against women are 30% globally (World Health Organization, 2021). According to the Australian Family Law Reform Act (Australian Government, 1995) “[d]omestic and family violence occurs when someone tries to control their partner or other family members in ways that intimidate or oppress them. Controlling behaviours can include threats, humiliation (‘put downs’), emotional abuse, physical assault, sexual abuse, financial exploitation and social isolations, such as not allowing contact with family or friends”. The health impact of domestic and family violence perpetrated against women is significant, creating individual and familial suffering and placing a substantial burden on the global economy (World Health Organization, 2021). Poorer physical and mental health outcomes are suffered when women are exposed to combined forms of abuse such as psychological and/or sexual and physical violence and a rich understanding of the experience is required to enable tailoring of responses (Potter et al., 2021).

Engaging People with Lived Experience in Research

To appropriately respond to domestic, family and sexual violence, recognition of the importance of hearing the voices of people with lived experience of abuse within research has grown (Sexual Violence Research Initiative and The Equality Institute, 2021). Yet until relatively recently, few violence researchers had proposed the numerous benefits to involving victim-survivors as part of the research team or as co-researchers at the very beginning of violence research (Tarzia et al., 2017).

There has been a shift over time in a range of community health and social services towards research approaches that are more collaborative, inclusive and democratic (Oliver et al., 2019b). Literature shows considerable progress in the engagement of people with lived experience as research partners. This movement has led to the development of a range of research approaches which are described as participatory, co-produced or co-designed. The momentum of uptake of this type of research approach has been greatest across the mental health (King & Gillard, 2019) and broader health care sectors and with Indigenous populations internationally (Baum & Simpson, 2006; Butler et al., 2022; Jull et al., 2018).

It is difficult to obtain consistent or universal definitions of ‘co-designed’ or ‘co-produced’ research (Oliver et al., 2019a; Thomas-Hughes, 2018). However, it is agreed that these approaches challenge ‘traditional power dynamics by valuing the expertise of experience’ (Darby, 2017, p. 231). Current literature suggests that co-production occurs across a continuum; ranging from low levels of engagement where people with lived experience have limited involvement or degree of influence over the project, to work that is initiated and led by people with lived experience (Werner-Seidler & Shaw, 2019).

Research approaches valuing lived experience expertise align particularly well with the feminist frameworks that underpin much research in the domestic violence, family and sexual violence sectors (Johnson & Flynn, 2021). Early responses to domestic violence were driven by activists in partnership with women with personal experience of violence (Hague & Mullender, 2006; Theobald, 2009). Feminist researchers view victim-survivors as having valuable knowledge and expertise about violence (McIntosh & Wright, 2019). Consequently, there has been increased exploration of ways to ensure victim-survivors are centered as genuine sources of knowledge in research about domestic and family violence (Campbell & Wasco, 2000, p. 773).

Although there may be ethical issues associated with people with lived experience participating in research (distress and risk of harm), there is potential for empowerment through their participation (Dragiewicz et al., 2023; Martineau et al., 2020; Tarzia et al., 2023). The few qualitative studies exploring experiences of victim/survivors participating in violence research (Campbell et al., 2010; Dragiewicz et al., 2023; Tarzia et al., 2023; Valpied et al., 2014) overwhelmingly show most victim/survivors report positive experiences (Campbell et al., 2010) leading to feelings of growth (Dragiewicz et al., 2023) empowerment and positive reinforcement (Tarzia et al., 2023; Valpied et al., 2014). Dragiewicz et al. (2023) even found that some women identified research as a safe space to disclose their abuse, offering an opportunity for victim/survivors to speak honestly and openly about their experiences. These findings are similar to benefits of involvement in trauma research more broadly, where a meta-analysis involving 70 trauma studies reported participants had mostly positive experiences of sharing their trauma (Jaffe et al., 2015). Whilst Valpied et al. (2014) determined that some victim/survivors found research to be re-traumatizing, most felt it was balanced by the benefits of feeling empowered and the process being cathartic.

Although there are an increasing number of studies exploring the experience of victim-survivors as research participants (Richards et al., 2023; Zark et al., 2023), there are no known studies undertaken with victim-survivors specifically engaged as co-researchers who contribute to research priority-setting, design, implementation and dissemination. There is growing recognition that victim-survivors want to play a more active role in research that is not limited to participation alone (Lamb et al., 2023; Tarzia et al., 2023), yet there is a paucity of evidence exploring the motivations and experiences of those who enter the research space as a victim-survivor collaborator. In response to this gap, the present study aimed to understand victim-survivors’ motivations for joining a lived experience co-researcher group and to explore experiences of having an active and leadership role in shaping the research agenda. This may help other research organizations establishing lived experience groups in this field to benefit from this understanding.

Background to the WEAVERs

In recognition of the important role that victim-survivors can play in co-producing research about domestic, family and sexual violence, the University established the WEAVERs group in 2016. This initiative was designed to ensure the voices of survivors of domestic and family violence shape the work and agenda of university researchers, and influence teaching and training. To our knowledge, the WEAVERs were the first lived experience group intentionally orchestrated to have formal input into the design, implementation and dissemination of research about domestic, family and sexual violence. Women who joined this group did so with the understanding that they were going to contribute to the research agenda concerning domestic and family violence rather than merely participate in research determined by researchers. The group initially comprised nine women who had been participants in previous research studies concerning abuse and violence run by the university and has since been joined by more members, drawn from the community. Members of the WEAVERs come from a range of backgrounds and have lived experience of violence from an intimate partner and/or a member of their family. The group engages in a range of research projects funded through competitive grants but also engages in research commissioned by non-government and government organizations. The group have been employed by the university they are working with, and they have two researchers who work closely with them on projects, and a research assistant who coordinates their schedules, assists with transportation options, and payment of work.

The group has co-produced two key documents designed to record the group’s practice and method of working but also to promote discussions about best practice across the broader domestic violence research sector (Lamb, 2023). The WEAVERs co-researchers have also supported the development of many research projects, reports, sat on governmental advisory panels, delivered webinars and presentations at international conferences. More information about the WEAVERss is available at Safer Families Centre website .

Methods

Following ethical approval from the University of Melbourne, the nine women who had been part of the WEAVERs lived experience group since its inception were asked to participate in face-to-face interviews reflecting on their experiences and motivations for joining. These interviews took place with seven consenting WEAVERs in April of 2017; two WEAVERs were unavailable at the time of interviews.

The research team decided to use reflexive thematic analysis, acknowledging that subjectivity is a resource in qualitative data interpretation (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Recognizing their own diverse views and values, yet all identifying as women who are feminist researchers, the team responsible for analysis consisted of nurse, a social worker, a sociologist and a medical practitioner who have all moved into gender-based violence research.

Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were de-identified, and to prevent a conflict of interest, none of the research team who worked with the WEAVERs group were given access to transcripts prior to the de-identification process. The de-identified transcripts were coded descriptively by the first and second authors with the assistance of QSR NVivo. Descriptive codes were grouped together independently by two researchers before being discussed as a group, and interpretive coding resulted from a shared understanding of meaning during discussions. Following guidelines provided by Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis (2006), the research team came together to discuss coding structure and worked together to verify codes and group them (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019, 2021). Following this, RF) and KL continued to liaise on identifying grouping of interpretive codes into overarching themes informed through a combined understanding of the data. These themes were then discussed with and endorsed by LT and KH.

Findings

Four main themes were developed from our analysis of the interview data. These reflect the motivations of victim-survivors to join a lived experience research group before providing a narrative on their experiences since joining the group. The first theme, Making a difference, speaks to the personal reasons that empowered the women to become a part of something that was very new at the time. Having that collective experience theme explains some of the benefits victim-survivors experienced from joining the group and shows how important it was to feel supported by others with similar experiences. The theme, Wounds that are still very raw, describes the risk that victim-survivors were undertaking when committing themselves to the work of a lived experience group and discusses the potential for triggering and re-traumatization. Finally, the There’s no blueprint for this theme addresses some of the procedural and infrastructure work the victim-survivors had to engage with to build a meaningful, sustainable group.

Making a Difference

WEAVERs reported many reasons for feeling motivated to join the group, with most rationales describing a desire to make a difference for other women experiencing violence. For some, that inspiration was driven by a passion for research: “I felt I may be able to contribute to the research of a field of study I feel very passionate (about)” (Victim-survivor 3). Many felt they had “an ideal opportunity for me to put in my two bobs worth” (Victim-survivor 5), especially because they perceived their voices could result in “helping other women” (Victim-survivor 1). This appetite to engage in meaningful contribution for the benefit of others led to some victim-survivors feeling gratitude for the opportunity the be involved in the WEAVERs group “it was an amazing opportunity to make a contribution to research in this area - violence against women - which is obviously something that’s very personal for me” (Victim-survivor 1). Although passion was a key motivator, the desire to see real change was even more persuasive:

I wanted to be involved in change that comes from a grass roots level from peers and survivors of violence, but that has the power to influence research, policy, services, organizations, systems and responses to violence against woman and change the culture that perpetuate violence against women. (Victim-survivor 2)

Although victim-survivors were informed by university staff that their contribution – though meaningful – may not create immediate change because of the barriers associated with creating shifts at a systems level, there was hope this could occur:

I felt that I could inform the research with my experience, and perhaps the research will influence government policy or various groups in society. (Victim-survivor 7)

All women felt that their stories and knowledge could be shared with others in similar positions to them, especially as some women had such a diversity of experience:

Living on the run from family violence and church-based violence had given me the strongest motivation I need to do the work I do in community and to join this panel. (Victim-survivor 2)

Although some WEAVERs identified a simple need regarding wanting to focus their energies on making change “I’ve been wanting to make some sort of positive contribution other than angry Facebook posts” (Victim-survivor 1), for others there were additional factors that motivated their desire for involvement, such as using their new-found voice:

It was something that I kept quiet. No-one ever knew anything about it, not even my family - my parents or my sister. No-one ever knew anything about it. (victim-survivor 7)

Some victim-survivors were particularly motivated to see an enhancement in community awareness about domestic and family violence though educational activities, believing them to be essential for changes in community attitudes: “Anything that changes the perceptions of what a domestic violence relationship is; anything that educates anybody in the community [is good]” (Victim-survivor 4). Poor community attitudes towards domestic violence were often cited as a rationale for wanting to create change “We can change some of the perceptions of some people in our community that don’t get it” (Victim-survivor 6).

Importantly, victim-survivors recognized that they were knowledge holders, and were keen to share their knowledge with others who lacked lived experience:

It [the group] gives women such as myself, who’s never had a voice, a chance to have a voice… It finally gave us a chance to say look this is what we think is important, rather than some board or some anonymous group of people deciding what they think is good for [us], ….We all have a huge wealth of knowledge that’s not - it’s not book-learning, we don’t have a degree, or a piece of paper, but we do have an extensive experience in this area. (Victim-survivor 4)

WEAVERs perceived that in using their voices and sharing their knowledge they were able to reclaim their identity which had been taken from them during their abuse experiences:

Having my identity written off, that motivated me to join this panel as it is empowering to be in a space where you are respected for your experiences and respected for who you are in a mutually supportive peer space. (Victim-survivor 2)

Making a difference to other women motivated women to join and helped sustain their engagement in the lived experience group, “I can’t overstate how amazing it is for me to know that that is helping other people” (Victim-survivor 1) and “I hadn’t realized that we had such an important role” (Victim-survivor 7). Many felt worthwhile because they could be an influence “for those women and children who do not have a voice” (Victim-survivor 3).

Having that Collective Experience

Maintaining connection to the group was achievable because of the sense of solidarity experienced by the members “I think because you all have that collective experience, that thread that runs through the group” (Victim-survivor 4). For some, that sense of solidarity was linked to the validation and reassurance they felt from sharing their stories and hearing from others:

Listening to others share their experiences which are similar to mine doesn’t make me alone in it. Yeah, and that there is a kind of universal dimension to what I have experienced. There’s a sense of - you know, a reaching out to the others. Within me there is a reaching out to the others…Maybe they’re reaching out to me too. It’s only if you’ve experienced it can you, I suppose, deeply understand that experience.(Victim-survivor 7).

WEAVERs gained strength from being with each other, feeling inspired by the presence of others:

To meet other survivors and women with lived experiences of violence who want to create change and who are passionate and strong minded and fiery about it; it gives me hope for the future. (Victim-survivor 2)

For some women, this strength simply came from being together among others similar to themselves: “There’s a real sense of camaraderie and I will say sisterhood, because we’re all women” (Victim-survivor 1), and to see they had allies: “We had the bravado of numbers” (Victim-survivor 5). For others it was a deeper connection that meant they were no longer alone in their experiences: “I’ve met other women who’ve been in similar situations, I find that very therapeutic because it means you don’t feel so socially isolated” (Victim-survivor 4). Finding strength in each other was also encouraging for WEAVERs:

I really noticed that when she stood up and spoke she was shaking. It was a real big thing for her to do that, and I was just inspired by her getting up and speaking out. (Victim-survivor 7)

The experience of working together offered a therapeutic reassurance that victim-survivors had not been able to find elsewhere:

I have done quite a bit of work in my counselling work, but you know, I just thought talking with other - particularly with other women who have experienced something similar, it’s different from talking to a counsellor. I found that very powerful. (Victim-survivor 7)

Although WEAVERs came from diverse backgrounds and had a variety of experiences related to family violence, their connection became important “they may not be the same age as me or the same religion or the same color, but that doesn’t matter” (Victim-survivor 4). These relationships grew over time as members began “caring and looking out for each other, that’s all the things that are positive” (Victim-survivor 6). Some victim-survivors found these relationships to be essential in their journey towards sharing knowledge and experiences, and they perceived it to contribute to a growth in confidence:

It really is a privilege to be there with them and to be getting to know them. I think, yeah, because we all starting to get to know each other a bit better and there’s more trust and more of a sense of comfort I suppose, or safety with each other that people are making more contributions as the weeks go on. (Victim-survivor 1)

Wounds that are Still Very Raw

Despite the fact that the WEAVERs were passionate about making a difference and felt empowered and strong from working with each other, there were difficult times. Some of those challenges were related to the women “knowing you’re in the presence of some really extreme trauma” (Victim-survivor 1). There was an awareness that “women have stories to tell and have wounds that are still very raw” (Victim-survivor 3). Some women were so worried about being triggered by other people’s stories that they very nearly didn’t get involved “I thought no, I don’t know if I can handle this” (Victim-survivor 6). These concerns were not just for themselves: “One of my concerns was the triggers and the possible traumatic symptoms that’ll come out for people” (Victim-survivor 1).

There was recognition for the strength it would take to discuss difficult experiences “I mean you’re - there seems to be a kind of a lot of courage in sort of opening yourselves up to the unknown. It takes a lot of courage to do that” (Victim-survivor 7). Some women identified a balancing act of sharing important information and experiences, but also being mindful of what was being said and the impact it could have on others:

You’ve got to be sensitive because people - you know, it all comes out… - we need to sort of stay on track, in a way. (Victim-survivor 5)

Several WEAVERs were interviewed before they had shared their own stories or heard from the experiences of others in the group, yet were fully aware they would be hearing content they may find distressing:

People’s details will come out and that’s fine. I’m prepared for that…we all know why we’re there but none of us knows exactly why the other people are there. Yes, and I’m fine for when that does come out. You always know that it’s going to be awful because - while it’s just kind of generic trauma, it’s like, uh, that’s really awful, but then when you hear the specifics, it just reminds you how shitty this stuff is. But that’s what we’re dealing with (Victim-survivor 1).

Because victim-survivors had awareness of the extent of trauma they were likely to encounter, they were active in self-care and encouraging others to engage in “checking in with panel members to see where they are at”. They shared ideas of how they were going to continue to support each other: “[Have] a walk and talk buddy policy so that means that if anyone gets triggered, we can grab a peer and just walk and talk” (Victim-survivor 2). Although there were plenty of ideas for how members could care for each other, they had fewer solutions for some of the additional challenges that had begun to evolve. These included situations where group dynamics posed difficulties and required WEAVERs to remind themselves “that we all handle things differently” (Victim-survivor 1).

Members felt that the research team were able to support them through challenging times: “[T]he research team were very respectful towards us and gave everybody a chance to have a voice, which was really good” (Victim-survivor 1). Perceptions about demonstration of respect by the research team affirmed the respect that the victim-survivors had for one another, making WEAVERs feel supported:

I really am grateful for how, as I said, how respectful and - respectfully and sensitively the researchers - have been handling it. There have been some difficult moments as, of course, there will be. But yeah, I’ve come out of each workshop feeling really good and positive about it…that’s fantastic because it has to be a supportive and respectful environment (Victim-survivor 1).

There’s no Blueprint for this

Victim-survivors spoke about the fact that they were doing something new in this space. While it was exciting to embark on a unique journey of victim-survivor led research design, implementation and dissemination, they were aware that they were forging a novel path and didn’t have processes or guidelines to follow; instead, they were responsible for setting up these important foundations.

Group dynamics were perceived by some as potentially tricky in a group who were passionate for what they were doing, and the important role they had in developing the foundations for the work. This is particularly relevant for a group where some members tended to doubt their contribution and lack confidence: “Sometimes I felt a little bit inadequate in that I don’t know if I’m going to be able to do this justice” (Victim-survivor 6). Some spoke of this being particularly problematic when other members of the same group demonstrated opposing characteristics: “I can never just sit down and shut up. I’ve always got to try to have a say in which way the bloody ship is being steered and who’s steering it” stated one woman who perceived themselves to be “a disruptor” (Victim-survivor 5).

Some WEAVERs were anxious to get straight into the hard work of the group and found the setting up the terms of reference and procedures tedious and slow: “I have found the pace of progression difficult as I tend to see an outcome before properly experiencing the journey” (Victim-survivor 3). Yet, others recognized the necessity in putting appropriate policies and guidelines in place to bringing together a group of lived experience victim-survivors as co-researchers:

You can’t have a group of people such as us just randomly swanning in and then making decisions; it has to be formulated in the correct manner so that it will be taken seriously… there has to be guidelines, and as much as people might hate the fact that there has to be rules and that you have to have minutes … no-one will take you seriously unless you do that. (Victim-survivor 4)

Addressing practicalities from the beginning was perceived to provide reassurance: “The more we’re aware of those structures the better we’ll be able to move through” (Victim-survivor 7) and have long-term benefits:

When it’s written down and we all agree on it, it’s easy to go forward… you can sort of have a guideline and say okay, at this stage this is what we’re doing… I just find that really helpful (Victim-survivor 6).

Recognizing that their group were the first lived experience violence against women co-researcher panel in the world at that time, the group understood the importance of setting up the correct infrastructure:

There’s never been a similar model, and if you look at maybe this is going to be the crash-test dummy for that, then that will require even more setting up and more paperwork and more planning than if it was already in place…there’s no blueprints for this, there’s no guidelines that you can follow because you’re making those guidelines (Victim-survivor 4).

Some victim-survivors found the research-focused remit of the group a little frustrating and felt that they would like more action: “I wasn’t quite - I wasn’t fully aware of how research oriented it was. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I think I hoped for something that was a bit more active and demonstrative and wild” (Victim-survivor 5). For others, the processes gave them insight they had not previously had:

It’s helped me appreciate the constraints that practitioners and researchers are under. Because there have been times in my life where I’ve been frustrated from the consumer point of view with the services and what’s out there. So, it’s helped me. (Victim-survivor 1)

Their new knowledge meant a deeper tolerance of research processes. One survivor commented that: “I now understand that we’ve given all this to be able to set up what is going to be the purpose, what are the guidelines, what are our aims and purposes” (Victim-survivor 6). Another concurred: “[That was] the time to identify how we’re going to structure this. How we’re going to structure this process” (Victim-survivor 7).

Discussion

Four main themes were developed from our analysis of interviews with participants in a lived experience research group. The Making a difference theme describes how motivated and empowered the participants were to become a part of the panel. Having that collective experience explains how important it was to feel supported by others with similar experiences. Wounds that are still very raw describes the risk that victim-survivors were undertaking when committing themselves to the work of a lived experience group and the potential for triggering and re-traumatization. Finally, There’s no blueprint for this addresses some of the procedural and infrastructure work the victim-survivors had to engage in to build a meaningful, sustainable co-researcher group.

Feeling empowered by research participation has been documented elsewhere (Dragiewicz et al., 2023). As early as 2006, Beresford recognized the positive impact for those with lived experiences of disability and mental health in research participation (Beresford, 2007; Beresford & Campbell, 2006), and these positive experiences have been recorded in victim-survivors of rape who have participated in research (Campbell et al., 2010) as well as those experiencing intimate partner violence (Hamberger et al., 2020). The findings in this study support this but extends on them in showing that moving beyond research participation to research co-design can motivate and embolden victim-survivors. Recognition of the strength and confidence WEAVERs received is consistent with lived experience groups in mental health (Werner-Seidler & Shaw, 2019). Participants in the current study felt reassured that their previous experiences of violence – though negative - were able to make a difference; this contributed to the sense of empowerment for the WEAVERs who were motivated to help other women.

Participants in our study recognized the therapeutic benefit of joining the group, and found that the relationships they began to develop and the sense of camaraderie they felt nourished their commitment to staying involved, offering them opportunities to appreciate new measures of support to draw strength from (King & Gillard, 2019; Werner-Seidler & Shaw, 2019). Our findings strengthen the limited but emerging international evidence recognizing the value of using lived experience knowledge to improve outcomes and responses for others (Austin & Boyd, 2021; Sandhu, 2017; Werner-Seidler & Shaw, 2019). Although most research focusing on the benefits of co-design and co-production speak to the advantages for knowledge dissemination or translation (Cooke et al., 2017; Grindell et al., 2022), our study demonstrates that lived experience research group involvement enables victim-survivors to find strength in one another and provides therapeutic benefit. While violence researchers are striving to ensure knowledge is translated appropriately into practice (Tarzia et al., 2017), the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2018) demands researchers contemplate how beneficence is being achieved through research. Our study has demonstrated that we can have some confidence in engaging people with lived experience to design, implement and disseminate research as the participants described benefits to them to take on roles as co-researchers.

Finally, although Martineau et al. (2020) identify many barriers and ethical issues to working with individuals who have lived experience, our study discovered that there any many positives for those engaged in the process of designing, implementing and disseminating research amongst victim-survivors. Although not a novel finding in lived experience research, participants were involved as co-researchers, rather than at a participatory level; our study highlights the strength gained from this involvement, with many of them speaking to feeling empowered by the work they were doing. Our research suggests that being involved in lived experience research beyond the participation level can be beneficial for those who have experienced violence and abuse.

Our findings that women experienced companionship and felt hopeful that their contributions are improving outcomes for others reflect recent findings from mental health lived experience research. Participants in Honey et al.’s (2020) study described feeling empowered by the work they were doing, gaining knowledge from their involvement and experiencing therapeutic benefits from their participation. Each of those concepts were also discussed by the WEAVERs participants in the current study, despite the variance in lived experiences of each group member.

As Beeker and colleagues suggest, working collaboratively requires respect and trust (Beeker et al., 2021). The National Institute of Health and Care Research in the UK notes that it is essential to engage those with lived experience in health and social services research (Bramley et al., 2020). Participants in our study identified the importance of the respect and support they were shown by their research team, yet this is something that is often challenging in the academic environment which is hierarchical, output focused and where there are time pressures (Martineau et al., 2020). A recent framework developed for researchers who want to engage with victim-survivors of domestic and family violence has been published by members of the WEAVERs so that researchers who want to engage people with lived experience have guidelines to support their work (Lamb et al., 2023).

Martineau et al. (2020) recently undertook a scoping review to identify issues in lived experience research across settings. They quite rightly suggest that it can be potentially triggering for those with lived experience to be involved in research, and as such this can pose a significant ethical issue. WEAVERs also recognized the potential for traumatization inherent in being involved in this work and understood risk mitigation to include strategies such as peer support. They quickly realized that setting up appropriate structures early on to ensure effectiveness and sustainability of the group was essential to ensuring a positive experience. Given that the WEAVERs’ engagement is an ongoing process, rather than a one-off interview, it was essential that the potential for trauma be considered consistently, and that flexibility be provided to allow for times when participants were feeling overwhelmed or unwell. For these reasons, each participant was screened by researchers during the development of the group, and emotional safety has remained a focus during the work with the group.

Importantly, participants in our study knew there would be a risk with participation in lived experience work, however they all engaged in the group anyway. Rather than this deter them from being involved, they actively adopted strategies to minimize the risk of involvement. Our evidence suggests the women involved in this project were passionate about ensuring their autonomy was respected and knew enough about themselves to be the judge of what is too risky for them. Similar to their need to be self-determining in the practical care and support they seek following family violence and abuse, victim-survivors need to be seen as capable of making their own decisions about the risk involved with research.

Although there were some minor challenges involved with understanding research processes, establishing the infrastructure of the group and balancing group dynamics, these are consistent with similar research undertaken with lived experience researchers (Barlow & Hurlock, 2013). In their work with exited sex workers, Barlow and Hurlock describe challenges associated with creating a safe space for everyone and contemplating the fundamental elements of how to work as a team. Ultimately, similar to the participants in this study, the desire to come together as a group and create change was the motivation needed to create a meaningful piece of work (Barlow & Hurlock, 2013). Future establishment of lived experience groups should consider the additional training and support needs necessary for appropriate understanding and application,

Implications for Future Research

Future research could emphasize how to engage victim-survivors meaningfully in co-production over time so that we are informed how to sustain lived experience engagement. This research could focus on the processes that victim-survivors find safest to use, as well as those that are more clearly aligned with addressing barriers to participation such as personal perceptions of confidence and competence. Structural barriers preventing research engagement could also prioritized, with future research exploring power imbalances that commonly exist within research teams. Additionally, research is required to determine the knowledge and skills lived-experience researchers would like to acquire so they feel prepared enough to engage in opportunities for co-participation. Research could also be extended to determine whether those with lived experience see their work in research as an extension of forms of activism they may already be involved with; knowledge in this area could help inform how researchers can attract people with lived experience into research.

Finally, a future research priority could be to explore how researchers can invest in the connections they make with lived experience experts; there is a need to understand how these relationships can be nurtured in a system that is often not funded to support relationship building and maintenance (Martineau et al., 2020).

Study Strengths and Limitations

This study highlighted the voices of women experiencing domestic and family violence who have moved beyond research participation and into a role where they have capacity to inform the research agenda; this will benefit others with lived experience who contemplate the same transition.

A limitation of the study is that we were only able to capture the views of seven participants involved with one lived experience group. Further, all participants were English speaking women. Future research needs to be inclusive of diverse representation and amongst a broader range of lived experience groups.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that victim-survivors of domestic and family violence are motivated to join a co-researcher group by their personal values, passions, and previous experiences, but mostly to create meaningful change for other victim-survivors. As a collective, the lived experience group needed to protect themselves and others in the group when undertaking their work. Although they faced some challenges when navigating infrastructure and processes, the group recognized the need to do it well as they were forging a new path for other victim-survivors. Given the importance of their role in shaping future research endeavors, informing service design and creating suitable interventions for other victim-survivors, it is essential to prioritize meaningful engagement and structured guidelines with those who have lived experience of violence, to support them to reach their full potential as co-researchers.