You’re wrong about meaningful engagement. 

I’m sure no one wants to be told what “meaningful” should look or feel like by someone else, let alone an organization that may or may not “get it”. Yet, many today use the term “meaningful engagement” to discuss and support the expansion of how we incorporate lived-living experience (LLE) perspectives into various fields that serve our human needs. 

I was, until recently, using the term myself. Though it never quite sat well with me. “Meaningful engagement” doesn’t really mean anything. Even the World Health Organization has this to say about the term: “There is no universally defined concept of ‘meaningful engagement’, and various definitions have been used of this and other participatory approaches.”

Still, the phrase/concept is everywhere in the LLE work right now. We require it to demonstrate a commitment to including the people being served when the work is being developed, not just delivered. Be “meaningful” in how (and hopefully when) you engage persons with LLE. But will they ever meet our needs when it comes to that? 

To me, meaningful engagement should begin early and be consistently maintained throughout the project’s duration. There should be an element of respect, where my expertise is appreciated, sought, and heard. I should have more to do than just share the content with my networks. I should be able to help sculpt the work into something I might use or believe could be helpful. 

Does the way I feel about “meaningful engagement” cover how you would? Or could there possibly be nuanced needs that I might not find relevant or necessary? 

Why are we trying to professionalize terms or concepts that can’t be universally agreed upon or defined? This is the issue underlying the challenge of incorporating LLE perspectives in professional settings. There is a gap between the professional and the experiential that has been untouched and unbridged. The two sides don’t necessarily need to align at every level, but there should be moments where one takes the lead. 

“Meaningful engagement” is meant to set a standard of expectation. This term is meant to address the fact that those of us with LLE perspectives have often gone ignored, dismissed, or simply seen as “end users” by organizations, systems, and often, professionals. The phrase functions as an accountability term meant to reset how things have been done, so that we can do them in better, more intentional ways. To meaningfully engage, we must be clear about what this means. We must set attainable standards, and we must leave room for honest (and sometimes hard) feedback so that we can improve these approaches and bridge the gap that still exists between the professional and the experiential. 

We need to reconsider what we are truly aiming for and ensure that we are not allowing ourselves to be superficially engaged while maintaining our mission to be heard. I want to shift from using the term “meaningful engagement” to “measurable engagement” because, for too long, those of us with LLE perspectives didn’t even add up to a significant role in the work that was meant for us. 

Measurable engagement includes specific timelines, data points, and strategic approaches that demonstrate a clear and addressable level of engagement. If I know what the measures are, I can hold the work to a level of expectation and accountability. 

Meaningful sounds great, but we can’t measure meaning. Let’s move our work into substantive standards so we no longer continue to go uncounted. 

*World Health Organization. (2023, May 10). Framework for meaningful engagement of people living with noncommunicable diseases, and mental health and neurological conditions.