A person described as an expert wrote about an article published under my name: “The author of the article knows little about victims” (in Spanish: ‘Poco sabe de víctimas el autor del artículo‘, referring to the author in the masculine). Can someone be considered an expert when they speak publicly about an article not only without having read it, but also without having looked at my name or even my photo? Can someone be considered a feminist when attributing to men what is, in fact, done by women?
What is most serious is that she publicly wrote that someone like me—who reported my case at the age of eleven—“knows little about victims.” I have been fortunate to receive support from an outstanding psychologist—entirely unrelated to this person described as an expert—as well as the invaluable support of friendships that helped me navigate what I went through.
When I clarified that I am a victim, her response was: “If you are a victim of any crime, you may report it to the competent authority” (in Spanish: “si eres víctima de cualquier delito, puedes notificarlo a la autoridad competente”). Can someone be considered an expert if, in practice, they do not seem to understand that as an adult, I am not obliged to report something I experienced? Furthermore, I had already reported it at a young age. Perhaps, if she is not familiar with our experiences, she may not realize that some children report at an early age. Speaking about us without involving us can lead to misunderstandings that cause us significant harm.
It is very encouraging news for victims and survivors of child abuse that psychology which is vital to us—is increasingly embracing the principles of co-creation and social impact that define current scientific research across disciplines. Co-creation demands that victims are not spoken about in our absence; rather, scientific knowledge about victims should be developed through continuous dialogue with us.
More and more research groups are redirecting their focus toward the social impact requirement of aiming to improve the lives of victims and survivors, rather than the individual professional advancement of so-called “experts”. Such improvement cannot be evaluated without including their voices, which must be present not only in responding to questionnaires or interviews but also in the development of interpretations and the assessment of impact. For this reason, the focus is shifting from analyzing the problem to scientifically validated solutions—that is, from scientific evidence in general toward the subset that has already demonstrated social impact: the betterment of victims’ and survivors’ lives.
Increasingly, research groups in psychology and interdisciplinary fields are drawing on their rich academic experience to work towards the dual principles of co-creation and social impact. Clinging to the previous model is now being increasingly rejected by the majority of victims – and also by scientific communities.
👀 Visitas: 45
