Co-production of Government Social Research: lessons learned from a Welsh Government and Disability Rights Taskforce prototype - Conclusions

The prototype aimed to specifically carry out co-production with people with lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society in a GSR setting. This was to assess the extent to which it is possible for government social researchers to co-produce social research and consider any lessons on applying the social model of disability in GSR. 

The learning from this work can be used for future co-production projects, and also the involvement of people with lived experience in Government Social Research projects. Much of the learning is also applicable to co-producing in different contexts.

This final, concluding section therefore covers: 

• the co-production process and application 
• power and relationships
• co-production and involvement through the GSR research stages
• the social model of disability and accessibility
• individual and institutional learning

The literature shows there is no one definition of co-production and the evidence captured through the prototype showed that individuals have a different interpretation of what co-production means. Co-production methodologies can take different forms and vary in how they are applied and the levels of participation. In this prototype, individuals had differing previous experiences of working in a co-productive way. Developing a joint definition and vision to provide a common understanding of what co-production means was critical for this prototype so everyone had a shared understanding of how individuals involved could work together in a co-productive way. Although the co-production team reflected on the prototype vision at certain points, factoring time for this into discussions would have helped continued alignment to the vision.            

The findings showed that doing a co-productive prototype can be challenging, and co-production team members need a core set of skills and experience to do it. Experience in deliberation, facilitation techniques and community and stakeholder engagement were seen as enablers. Equipping everyone to work in a co-productive way through training, shadowing, coaching and learning from best practice could help to build relationships and aid a common understanding about how to deliver a co-production project in the future. 

The literature states that paying people for their time can enable individuals to get involved by removing financial barriers and thereby attract a more diverse group of co-producers and also be a tangible way to demonstrate that everyone’s contributions to co-production are valued and can build trust. For this prototype, a project remuneration package was co-designed and agreed by the co-production team, providing learning opportunities and research experiences. This was in place of financial payment due to the potential for a loss of welfare entitlement and income due to welfare entitlement and income due to UK tax and welfare benefit rules. The aim of the agreed remuneration package was to offer a rewarding experience of involvement throughout the whole research cycle, from scoping to dissemination. It also comprised of masterclasses and training related to disability rights approaches to research and co-production techniques. Although this was reported to result in a higher time commitment overall, it was well received and provided opportunities for the team to apply existing or develop new skills and knowledge. However, the prototype found that not offering financial payment could limit engagement for some in future co-production projects. Practitioners should also consider factoring in adequate time to agree remuneration arrangements within project timescales.

For this prototype, co-production as an approach for delivering social research was resource intensive and took more time than a standard GSR project. It was challenging to accurately anticipate the time and resources that were needed to deliver, especially given that co-production was an iterative way of working. The findings showed that meaningful exchange between members throughout the project was dependent on a large amount of often invisible hidden labour (for example, secure sharing of project documents, scheduling and communications). The prototype required a great deal of goodwill, commitment and patience to sustain participation. It is proposed this is considered by practitioners looking to co-produce research in the future.

There was an increase in research scope during the prototype where primary qualitative research was carried out instead of initially planned evidence reviews. This led to more demands on people over a longer period than anticipated and meant not all intended outputs were delivered. Future projects should consider spending more time at the early co-design stage to solidify the research scope and agree this in any terms of reference. This could help to enable projects to be better tailored to project resources and to limit scope creep. 

This prototype was felt to have an impact on individual wellbeing at times during prototype delivery, given the volume of work and the relationships involved. The co-production team had built in wellbeing check in points at the end of each project meeting as a result. It is proposed that future projects need to actively consider the wellbeing of individual co-production team members throughout project delivery and this needs to be a shared responsibility amongst group members. 

For this prototype, there was a need to clarify how decisions would be made to ensure transparency and maintain trust. Documenting decisions and how they were made was important to ensure everyone was clear on what was agreed and knew how to raise any issues. Decision making was found to take longer than anticipated. Estimating timescales were particularly challenging given the goal was for everyone to mutually agree any decisions taken. For future co-production projects, it is proposed that decision making protocols should be made clear in any terms of reference.

The prototype needed to be iterative and responsive to decisions that were taken along the way. Future projects should consider a flexible project management approach. Seeking an independent project manager to lead the project management could potentially help reduce burden, particularly for co-production members with project management responsibilities. 

The literature shows that relationships are core to success in co-production and evidence showed that more time was needed to establish mutual trust and relationships at the start of the prototype. It was deemed important by the co-producers to have allowed more time to get to know one another to start to develop relationships. Asset mapping was used as a tool to explore the reciprocal benefits of the co-production. Individuals could express what they each wanted to contribute and what they wanted to take away from the prototype. For example, the delivery of impactful research, new opportunities to co-deliver the research (not just co-design it) as well as learning new skills in delivering research methods. The prototype found that carrying out asset mapping was useful in understanding individual people’s motivations and developing reciprocal relationships. It is proposed that time is spent establishing relationships and asset mapping at the start of any future co-production projects. 

Overall, an equal power balance was not fully achieved for this prototype and the power balance varied through the different project stages. It was questioned within the prototype whether an equal power balance is something to strive to achieve in co-production, recognising it is not always possible to fully realise in a government setting. Given that the responsibility for project management and resources lay with Welsh Government social researchers, this had an impact on the power balance which sometimes led to tensions within the co-production team. It is proposed that any future co-production projects should recognise some of the potential power imbalances in a co-production project from the start and throughout, with everyone being open about the reasons for them. These could be reflected on at checkpoints throughout the project when needed. 

Co-production was experienced unevenly across participants and across research stages. The findings repeatedly showed divergence that could sometimes be contradictory: some participants felt empowered, others felt excluded. This was the case for Taskforce Chairs, Welsh Government researchers and others involved in the prototype. Some saw progress in power sharing, others felt government structures fundamentally limited partnership. Some experienced the prototype as energising and some experienced it as overwhelming. As with this learning prototype, it is suggested practitioners seek to understand these divergences as it can provide crucial evidence about the conditions under which co-production can succeed or fail.

The prototype aimed to co-produce across all stages of the research cycle, however the level of co-production varied across the different stages of the GSR research cycle, particularly as timescales were extended. Open and honest communication about time and resources were important to understand the reasons for adapting the collaborative working style across different stages. During the analysis and reporting stages of the prototype the co-production team agreed to adopt a more consultative approach to reduce some of the workload for the group, with Welsh Government researchers taking more of the lead. In the future, co-production projects should consider what is or is not possible to co-produce and to manage expectations within the group from the outset. 

There were positive examples of lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society informing the main stages of the GSR research cycle. These examples ranged from lived experience adding value to research design, ethics and scoping to undertaking fieldwork, data analysis and reporting, which were deemed by the group to have improved the overall quality of the research. However, how far some members of the co-production team were able to get involved was also partly determined by research skills and expertise. The prototype set out to draw conclusions about what level of involvement is feasible at each stage of a GSR project and the evidence demonstrated that this can be incorporated effectively at every stage. 

The prototype showed that it is not possible to achieve joint decision making in quality assurance of GSR research reports, as sign-off has to be the responsibility of GSR researchers. Some co-production team members reflected having a GSR quality assurance process worked well to provide a useful framework and format for publication. This was also said to have added rigour to the research ethics and data protection. However, as sign-off lay with GSR researchers, a theme around ‘who holds the report?’ emerged in the interview evidence. This theme questioned how far final outputs can really be jointly owned and to what extent these sign-off arrangements shaped levels of power and influence.

The GSR code values of objectivity and impartiality were found to be helpful for this prototype. The values set a clear expectation for neutrality when designing and delivering activities across research stages and provided a useful benchmark for reflection and validation. The principle of impartiality was sometimes challenging to reconcile with the ambitions of the co-production team to ensure the research was as impactful as possible. For example, it was felt that the language used and overall balance of the Disability Confident report did not reflect the strength of feeling from some research participants. It is proposed that conversations about reflexivity and positionality as a group are included in future co-production projects to recognise individual lived experiences that could impact on the co-production team’s ability to align to these values.

Co-producing with people who have lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society was deemed to have improved the overall credibility and impact of the research. There was evidence of added value of lived experience informing the research focus in terms of the issue being contextually relevant and the identification of topics that required more evidence at the time. The research topics were based on the recommendations by the Disability Rights Taskforce and one of the issues identified was how to agree which topics would be taken forward from a broad range of recommendations. Government Social Research projects are usually driven by political priorities, and this prototype gave an opportunity to deviate from that and showed that there are real benefits of involving people with lived experience to identify legitimate issues that require research to fill any evidence gaps. It is proposed that involving a wide range of people with lived experience of relevant topics or issues can be beneficial and provide valuable validation in evidence planning.

The findings from this research highlights questions raised about whether the prototype went far enough to embed diverse lived experiences and consider intersectionality. It is suggested that where necessary and appropriate, the co-production team could be designed with the representation of the relevant intersections of society in mind. If this is not practical, then varied and intersectional lived experience could be considered in the research methods of a project or within other forms of collaboration.

The social model of disability has been a long-standing commitment of Welsh Government. By focusing on the removal of societal barriers and promoting the inclusion and participation in all areas of life, the social model also underpins the principles of co-production. Co-production team members were positive about the application of the social model of disability within the prototype and that it had gone further than other projects they had previously been involved in. Steps were taken to actively explore and remove individual barriers as far as the project would allow. This involved regularly asking co-production team members to inform the team of any accessibility requirements. For example, offering a range of ways for team members to contribute, ensuring access to the appropriate technology and accessible written outputs for screen readers.

However, the co-production team needed to work through barriers to apply the social model of disability when interacting with processes beyond the project team's control. For example, sometimes there was a shortage of BSL interpreters or palantypists, particularly if meetings were scheduled at short notice. Working in an accessible way that adhered to the social model of disability could sometimes take more time. However, it was a crucial element of the prototype, and an ongoing and active practice following good ethical principles to ensure participation.

Accessibility was deemed to have supported new knowledge and insight to enter the process. It was deemed to be more than merely enabling participation and led to feelings of empowerment to participate. It shaped the level of authority and influence individuals could have in the social research process. It is proposed that practitioners consider how to better apply social model principles to social research and that it is actively encouraged in future projects.

Some co-producers reflected on their individual learning as a result of the prototype. Evidence from the research demonstrated positive examples of people in different roles learning from one another and overcoming any challenges as they arose. For some, the prototype was empowering and provided opportunities for personal development and growth. Some acknowledged they had gained a deeper understanding of disability rights, particularly in the current policy context of issues relating to disability in Wales. Others reflected they had gained a practical insight into research skills and GSR processes as well as the social model of disability. 

The evidence showed that the prototype increased confidence and resilience for some members within the co-production team, particularly when working on complex research projects that required members to consider diverse perspectives and find collective solutions. This in turn led to leadership opportunities for individuals and was seen as a positive outcome of the co-production project. 

One of the core aims of this prototype was to reflect on current infrastructure for co-production and the application of the social model of disability in the Welsh GSR context. This was about understanding any government constraints that are unavoidable, and constraints that are historically normalised but potentially open to re-design. The findings from this prototype have highlighted opportunities for institutional learning and change. This is already and will continue to be considered under the Well-being of Future Generations Act where it clearly states that ‘involvement’ is one of the crucial ways of working to achieve the act’s well-being goals. It will also be considered in relation to the Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Unit strategy to mainstream equality, inclusion and involvement in Welsh Government GSR and other analytical professions.

Co-production is a participatory approach and considered a rights-based and reciprocal approach to undertaking social research. Therefore, it is potentially less likely to be considered extractive by individuals who have lived experience of being disabled. Some of the co-production team felt this was a more ethical way of working, reflecting the ‘nothing about us, without us’ principle of the disability rights movement. This was described as a response to historical injustices experienced by disabled people in research. Practitioners should consider the right of people who have lived experience of protected characteristics to be involved in studies that are about them. It is proposed this should be considered in research scoping and that involvement can take many forms from steering group membership to peer review or full co-production. 

This prototype attempted to consider the art of the possible and to apply co-production principles as far as possible through each stage of the project. The opportunities for equal power dynamics and joint decision-making varied throughout the stages of the project and for different activities and tasks. Looking back, labelling the prototype as ‘co-production’ sometimes caused unrealistic expectations for the co-production team. It should always be considered if and how to ‘co-produce’ or ‘co-design’ and when it is more appropriate to ‘consult’ or to ‘inform'. One of the main learnings for practitioners to consider from this prototype is to really understand the level of decision-making they can share at each stage of the process and be clear about that from the outset.