Archives

Understanding Violence: The risks for migrants with rising far-right fascism

VISION is pleased to announce the funding for an exciting new project from the Migrants’ Research Network (MRN). The funding will extend and disseminate MRN’s existing work to:

understand the nature of far-right violence against migrants in the UK focusing on sites where MRN is currently engaged,
provide migrants with resources to recognize and understand when significant risk of violence is present, and
catalogue migrant experiences of violence to feed forward to better understanding and future resourcing of violence prevention.

MRN has worked extensively to support migrants, to build a basis for political participation and advocacy of migrant interests, and to recognize and combat violence and discrimination. In an existing piece of work, MRN created a draft of an ‘explainer’ document for migrants living in temporary accommodations, detailing the nature of racism in the UK, and the rise of far-right violence against migrants, what risks migrants may face, how to recognize potentially violent situations, and what support and resources are available to migrants with insecure status who have experienced or fear experiencing violence.

Given the resurgence of far-right activity, this document can provide a crucial resource to support migrants, providing information to help mitigate fear. However, there is also a significant gap in knowledge regarding the types of violence migrants experience, how these experiences integrate across the life course in the context of previous experiences of violence, and how they affect a sense of safety in place.

This project seeks to fill that gap by integrating lived experience perspectives, and knowledge of those who work closely with migrants experiencing violence, such as caseworkers. Those with lived experience would iteratively revise the current explainer document, to be rolled out via various digital outlets, for broader reach.

While the motivation for this project is the basis of longstanding advocacy work, and academic-practitioner knowledge exchange, the objectives will fully integrate lived experience. The final outputs will be a series of social media posts for circulation and an ‘explainer’ leaflet, co-designed for migrants in insecure accommodation regarding far-right violence. Quantitative data in the form of a survey, and qualitative data collected in the course of discussions regarding the types of violence experienced by migrants and the fear of far-right violence, will generate a report to fill a gap in knowledge regarding violence experienced by people with insecure migration status.

For further information, please contact Andri at andri.innes@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Exploring guiding principles for ‘Doing Co-Analysis Justice’

Blog by Dr Annie Bunce, VISION Research Fellow

How can researchers meaningfully and ethically involve people with lived experience of the criminal justice system in data analysis?

This is the question myself, a group of VISION colleagues (Lizzie Cook, Polina Obolenskaya, Sian Oram, Les Humphreys and Sally McManus), Dani Darley (University of Sheffield) and a group of Revolving Doors’ (Home – Revolving Doors) lived experience members, explored via a face-to-face workshop in May and online feedback session in July, funded by City’s Participatory Research Fund.

Co-production, lived experience engagement, participatory research and patient and public involvement (PPI), amongst others, are increasingly common terms in academia and the wider research landscape. Guidelines and toolkits are popping up for doing participatory research with, for example, children and young people (Participation toolkit | Children and families affected by domestic abuse); survivors of domestic abuse (Review Resources on Survivor Involvement – VAMHN); children and young people in conflict with the law (Golden-Rules-young-people.pdf), and involving those with lived experience in criminal justice reform (PRI_10-point-plan_Lived-experience.pdf).

These broad principles on doing participatory research are useful and have guided my approach to multiple recent projects. But something I noticed is that there is generally less guidance on involving people from marginalised groups, particularly those with lived experience of the criminal justice system, in the data analysis stage of research projects specifically. Despite the analysis being at the heart of the research process. Essentially, activating the “co” in co-analysis is still somewhat of a mystery. And whilst a definitive “how-to” guide to collaborative data analysis alongside stakeholders would be at odds with the flexibility and relational grounding that are the beauty of co-analysis, a little guidance could make the process smoother and more enjoyable for everybody involved. Without this, quite a lot of angst can be caused repeatedly asking yourselves: Are we trying to do too much? Are we doing enough? How much can we afford to do? How much do people actually want to be involved? How can we make this happen?

Ironically, a fair bit of time in our workshop to co-produce some best practice principles for doing co-analysis was spent going round in circles tackling questions around how to do it. Ultimately, the best approach to co-analysis depends on various factors, including the type of data being analysed, people’s individual experiences and preferences and access to resources etc. Nevertheless, addressing these questions openly and collaboratively, welcoming and respecting everybody’s perspective and actively thinking about all the factors that need to be considered, made for an enlightening and productive discussion. From which themes have been identified and are currently being transformed into principles (watch this space).

A few spoilers:

Lots of ‘p’ words are involved, including planning, preferences, perfection, practicality and power
Transparency and avoiding tokenism are two of the most important principles for our participants in determining whether they found co-analysis enjoyable or not
Ethical standards and institutional processes need reframing if they are to authentically support participatory projects involving co-analysis
Co-analysis is messy, heavy and can’t just be squeezed in as an extra; the emotional labour that goes into both managing and participating in co-analysis must be valued
Co-analysis can also be fun. People with lived experience want to have fun with it, and it’s nice for them when academics can even have a bit of fun as well

For further information, please contact Annie at annie.bunce@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photographs:

Top: Post-its from the VISION – Revolving Doors co-analysis workshop
Bottom: Annie Bunce, VISION Research Fellow

A Lived Experience perspective of the 2025 VISION annual conference

by Justin Coleman, Violence, Abuse and Mental Health Network

The UK Prevention Research Partnership VISION consortium’s 4th annual conference on violence prevention was a truly impactful day. As part of the Violence, Abuse and Mental Health Network Lived Experience Advisory Group (VAMHN LEAG), representing a lived experience perspective, I found the discussions both thought-provoking and essential. The event skilfully blended academic rigor, professional expertise, and, crucially, profound lived and learned experience, prompting vital questions about how we truly move forward in creating a more inclusive and effective violence prevention landscape.

The Imperative of Inclusive Practice: Who Are We Really Serving?

A key takeaway was the urgent need for radical inclusivity. While Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) was rightly highlighted and the clear and marked volume and % percentage numbers are stark, I question if we’re inadvertently creating gaps for other survivors. As a male survivor of abuse, as a child, I wonder if our messaging and funding focus heavily on one demographic, how do we ensure male survivors, LGBTQ+ individuals, and marginalised communities (young and older) feel seen and supported? True trauma-informed practice, to me, means moving beyond “what’s wrong with you?” to “what happened to you?” for everyone who is impacted by all forms of violence and abuse. No matter who you are, this simply shouldn’t happen to anyone.

Data, lived experience, and investment: Are we looking at the full picture?

The power of data in policy was clear, but it also raised concerns. Are investment strategies relying on outdated statistics? If resource allocation isn’t based on continuously updated, comprehensive data, are we truly capturing the evolving landscape of violence and the needs of all survivors today? Quantitative data alone can miss nuanced realities that lived experience and ethnographic insights provide. We need a dynamic balance where current lived realities inform and refresh our understanding, ensuring our leadership is deeply connected to ‘our’ diverse lived experiences.

Redefining safety and dignity: Beyond the checklist

The concept of “safety” in support spaces commented on at the conference resonated deeply. Can we ever guarantee “safety,” or should we strive for environments that are continually “safer” and more “supported”? This shift moves us beyond ticking a box to an ongoing commitment. The most impactful word was “dignity.” Shouldn’t ensuring dignity be a fundamental aim at every stage of a survivor’s journey, enabling genuine opportunity for healing and empowerment?

Breaking silos: The path to unified prevention

Effective violence prevention demands a cross-government, cross-sector approach. We need to collaborate beyond our immediate professional bubbles, integrating insights from areas like the criminal justice system to inform victim services. While “whole-family” approaches were discussed, I questioned if we can expand this to truly embrace “whole-community” approaches, ensuring LGBTQ+ individuals, isolated people, and every member of society has an equitable voice and space in prevention, responsibility, and repair.

Moving forward: A collective responsibility

This conference was a crucial step, bringing vital voices to the table. The co-produced animation with VAMHN and SafeLives, available on the City St George’s University of London YouTube channel, https://youtu.be/z6LbYDGfBZw?si=3-tJYXDqLfM16pE-, is an excellent resource for understanding lived experience engagement. To truly mobilise an effective cross-government response, we must continue to ask:

Are our investment decisions agile enough to respond to current data and the evolving needs of all survivors?
Does promoting the financial cost of crime and low conviction rates discourage reporting?
How can we ensure every violence prevention initiative is genuinely trauma-informed and inclusive, making all children, male, LGBTQ+, and all marginalised survivors feel equally seen, heard, and supported? What is the cost of not being inclusive?
Are we creating enough opportunities for genuine connection and partnership across diverse stakeholders at events like this, rather than just delivering information?
Are we bravely embracing “safer” and “dignity” as guiding principles, continuously improving how we support survivors?
Are we actively breaking down silos to build robust and equitable prevention and support systems?

The future of violence prevention depends on challenging existing paradigms, embracing inclusivity, advocating for trauma-informed practice and care, and working together from all perspectives with updated knowledge and a shared commitment to a safer journey towards dignity for all. This VISION conference stimulated valuable questions and directions, strengthening my determination to build connectivity, dignity, and safer spaces for survivors.

To read the latest Violence, Abuse and Mental Health Network newsletter: June VAMHN newsletter

Photograph licensed under Adobe Stock subscription

New infographic illustrating lived experience as essential knowledge

In February 2024, the Violence, Abuse, and Mental Health Network (VAMHN) Lived Experience Advisory Group members and several UKPRP VISION Consortium researchers explored together the role of lived experience as a form of knowledge and evidence. They addressed lived experience’s placement within the “evidence hierarchy” and the impact of language on engagement.

Key points included the significant influence of labels and power dynamics in determining which experiences are deemed valuable, the potential negative connotations of the term “lived experience,” and the necessity for lived experience to be integrated into research processes rather than being an afterthought.

Discussions underscored the evolving nature of lived experience, the challenges in showcasing expertise, the importance of ethical considerations, and the need for ongoing support and safe spaces for meaningful engagement. The workshop emphasised that lived experience should be a foundational element in research, akin to an integral ingredient, not merely an optional addition.

The discussions were summarised as a colourful and exciting infographic, illustrated by Jenny Leonard (www.jennyleonardart.com).

Illustration licensed by VAMHN and Jenny Leonard Art