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

This social research project would not have been possible without the dedicated time and extensive and insightful contributions made by members of the co-production team at each stage of the research for both the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and National Centre for Independent Living projects. 

Welsh Government would like to pay particular thanks to co-production team members from the Disability Rights Taskforce and their continued support and contributions to this social research project.

In September 2023, the Chairs of the Disability Rights Taskforce in Wales mutually agreed to collaborate with the Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units. Their aim was to co-produce Government Social Research (GSR). 

The aim of the prototype was to trial co-production as a way of conducting social research alongside representatives of disabled people using the principles of the social model of disability. 

Many members of the co-production team had lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society, which included some of the Welsh Government officials. 

The prototype aimed to test the extent to which co-production can be achieved within a GSR setting and when considering the GSR code. GSR is the professional membership organisation for social research in government. The GSR code is an addendum to the Civil Service Code and includes the core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. This sets out a number of standards that must be met for research to be considered GSR. 

The ambition was to enable decision makers to develop better informed policies and drive better outcomes for people as part of contributing to a more equal Wales under the Well-being for Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The prototype was designed to provide learning for the GSR community and policy officials to put ‘involvement’ into practice as one of the act’s sustainable development principles. The prototype would also enable delivery of the mission of the Welsh Government’s Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units “to improve the availability, quality, granularity and accessibility of evidence about individuals with protected and associated characteristics to fully understand the level and types of inequalities in Wales.”

Following the co-production prototype, the aim of the lessons learned research project was to understand to what extent it is possible for government social researchers to co-produce social research. Additionally, the research aimed to consider any lessons on applying the social model of disability in GSR. Welsh Government social researchers were responsible for delivering the lessons learned research from the prototype. 

The social model of disability focuses on societal barriers rather than impairments, advocating for the same rights for disabled people as their peers. The social model shifts responsibility to society, calling for the removal of barriers (structural, cultural, and discriminatory) which hold back disabled people's participation.

The objectives of the lessons learned research project were:

• to draw conclusions about what level of involvement is feasible at each stage of a GSR project
• to understand the barriers and enablers to co-producing research in GSR
• to understand the added value of carrying out research collaboratively with people with lived experience and expertise of being disabled by barriers in society and incorporating the social model of disability 

In total, 16 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 5 Disability Rights Taskforce Chairs and 11 Welsh Government officials (which included social researchers and policy officials) between September and November 2025. 

An independent researcher from Co-Production Lab Wales was commissioned to collect views from 4 Taskforce Chairs and undertake thematic analysis of the interviews. The independent researcher then shared the themes identified with the Welsh Government social researchers leading on the lessons learned project. 

Two Welsh Government social researchers led the data collection and thematic analysis from 11 Welsh Government officials and one Taskforce Chair.

A senior research officer who had previously been a member of the co-production prototype led a desk-based review of project documents. 

A literature review was undertaken by Welsh Government’s Internal Research Programme of evidence relating to co-production and disability research. 

An independent peer reviewer was commissioned to sense check research tools before fieldwork started, to facilitate a thematic analysis reflection workshop and to review the draft report. The independent peer reviewer provided advice and support to the project team, particularly around any methodological or ethical issues.

The co-production prototype had 3 phases of delivery, agreed with the Chief Social Research Officer for Welsh Government.

• Phase 1 (to co-design a vision for the research, including establishing the topics for the research and ways of working together). 
• Phase 2 (to co-produce evidence which included co-design and delivery of a research workplan, co-writing of research reports and to jointly brief ministers and disseminate the research findings).
• Phase 3 (co-production lessons learned research led by Welsh Government social researchers to learn from and evaluate the co-production approach and consider additional ways to capture lived experience and expertise and share that learning from the prototype).

The co-production team worked together to co-design and agree the overall prototype vision. This defined co-production as “working in equal partnership, learning how to produce research together, involving Disability Rights Taskforce Chairs without over-burdening them, and publishing reports of a good standard as co-produced and co-authored research”. 

The vision set out the co-production team’s intention to adopt ways of working together that valued diversity, were inclusive, transparent and allowed the team to be creative and learn from each other.

During the scoping stages of the co-production prototype, the team agreed to co-produce 2 research projects based on Disability Rights Taskforce recommendations. These recommendations had previously been identified and proposed to the Welsh Government following the inequalities experienced by disabled people in society during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The first research topic explored the potential for establishing a National Centre for Independent Living in Wales. The second research topic explored ways to improve the Disability Confident Employer Scheme in Wales.

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

The 5 areas covered by the learning are: 

• the co-production process and application
• power and relationships
• co-production and involvement through 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 different previous experiences of co-production. 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.

The findings showed doing a co-production project 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 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. 

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 UK tax and welfare benefit rules. Although the remuneration package 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. In this prototype, 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 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 prototype was felt to have an impact on individual wellbeing at times, 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. 

There was a need to clarify how decisions would be made to ensure transparency and maintain trust. 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. Asset mapping was used as a tool to explore the reciprocal benefits of co-production. Individuals could express what they each wanted to contribute and what they wanted to take away from the prototype. 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. 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. 

Co-production was experienced unevenly across participants and across research stages, with some feeling empowered and some 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. As with this co-production 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 research stages, however the level of co-production varied across the different stages of the GSR research cycle, particularly as timescales 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 social researchers taking more of the lead. 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, the extent to which 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. As sign-off lay with GSR researchers, a theme around ‘who holds the report?’ emerged. 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. It is proposed that conversations about reflexivity and positionality 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. It can provide real benefits in identifying legitimate issues that require research to fill any evidence gaps. It is proposed that involving a wide range of people with lived experience can be beneficial and provide valuable validation in evidence planning.

Questions were raised about whether the prototype went far enough to embed diverse lived experiences and consider intersectionality. In the future, 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.

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. 

However, the co-production team needed to work through barriers to apply the social model of disability when interacting with processes beyond the team's control. 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 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. 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 have gained a practical insight into research skills, GSR processes and the social model of disability. 

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. 

One of the 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. 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 Units strategy to mainstream equality, inclusion and involvement in Welsh GSR and other analytical professions.

Co-producing social research was found to be 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 apply co-production principles as far as possible through each research stage. The opportunities for equal power dynamics and joint decision making varied throughout the research stages 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 are permitted to share at each stage of the process and be clear about that from the outset.

In September 2023, the Disability Rights Taskforce mutually agreed to collaborate with the Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units with the aim of co-producing Government Social Research (GSR) informed by lived experience. The research would prototype the extent to which GSR can be co-produced, working together to navigate barriers and embrace enablers for change.

This was considered important to strengthen the evidence base, improve knowledge and understanding and use innovative methods such as co-production in GSR. 

Co-production is not new, but it is increasing in prominence as more organisations recognise the value that lived experience can bring to decision making. Co-production as both a practice and a debated concept dates back to the 1970’s. Elinor Ostrom originally defined co-production as a way in which citizen participants could have a role in formulating public policy (The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom by Alford, 2014, available at Taylor and Francis online). 

More recently, the emergence of a “new public governance model” has placed the focus on inter-organisational relationships, networks, collaborative partnerships, participatory governance and other forms of multi-actor relations (Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool by Sorrentino and others, 2018, available at Oxford Academic). The trend in the UK in recent decades has been towards co-production, conceptualised as a “common sense shift to delivering public services” (Reflections on Making Co-production Work: The Reality of Co-production from an Insider Perspective by Fillingham and others, 2023, available at Oxford Academic).

Arnstein (A Ladder of Citizen Participation, 1969, available at Taylor and Francis online) conceptualises the levels of possible participation in decision making as rungs on a ladder (Figure 1). At the lowest level of participation, citizen partners with lived experience are manipulated by the organisation that involves them. Partners do not have agency and are imposed on by organisations and institutions which assume they understand the issues best. At the highest level of participation, citizen partners have strong control over the decisions that are made. They have full agency and are considered active participants, with equal power to other members of the team. 

Figure 1: levels of public involvement shown using Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Participation’ 

Image

By definition, co-production should involve participation at the higher levels of the ladder. However, most research claiming to be co-production falls around the consultation level, meaning that partners do not actually have the power to actively make decisions. Critiques of co-production do not undermine the value of co-production but call for a more nuanced definition of the process. This new definition should appreciate the links between the process of public service delivery and the value that delivery aims to bring to society (Beyond co-production: Value creation and public services by Osborne and others, 2021, available at Wiley online library). Ocloo and Matthews (From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement, 2016, available at BMJ Journals) argue that service improvement projects should take a democratic rights-based, and values-based approach, emphasising direct involvement, empowerment and democratisation of decision making at the community level. 

The research aimed to prototype co-production as a way of conducting social research alongside representatives of disabled people and using the principles of the social model of disability. 

The research aimed to enable delivery of the Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units mission “to improve the availability, quality, granularity and accessibility of evidence about individuals with protected and associated characteristics to fully understand the level and types of inequalities in Wales.” The ambition, as part of contributing to a more equal Wales under the Well-being for Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, was to enable decision makers to develop better informed policies and drive better outcomes for people. ‘Involvement’ was introduced as one of the act’s sustainable development principles to achieve the wellbeing goals. The co-production prototype provides learning for the GSR community and policy officials to support the delivery of this principle in practice.

The research involved co-production with the Disability Rights Taskforce. In July 2021, the Locked out: liberating disabled people’s lives and rights in Wales beyond COVID-19 report highlighted the inequalities experienced by disabled people in society. One of the previous Welsh Government’s responses to the report was to set up the Disability Rights Taskforce, a partnership between Welsh Government and disabled people. The Taskforce was co-chaired by the then Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip and a chosen representative from the Welsh Government Disability Equality Forum. The Taskforce operated on the principle of co-production, with more than 200 Welsh Government policy officials and 350 external stakeholders working together to develop recommendations, aimed at improving outcomes for all disabled people in Wales. These recommendations have been used to inform the outcomes and actions of the Disabled People’s Rights Plan.

Equality and reciprocity are essential in co-production. The prototype aimed to test the extent to which co-production can be achieved within a GSR setting when considering the GSR code. GSR is the professional membership organisation for social research in government. The GSR code is an addendum to the Civil Service Code and includes the core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. This sets out a number of standards that must be met for research to be considered GSR. The GSR competency framework and the GSR publication protocol also guide the way social researchers produce research. All GSR researchers are responsible for upholding ethical assurance in their research. 

The 6 ethical principles for GSR research 

• Principle 1: research should have a clear user need and public benefit.
• Principle 2: research should be based on sound research methods and protect against bias in the interpretation of findings.
• Principle 3: research should adhere to data protection regulations and the secure handing of personal data.
• Principle 4: participation in research should be based on specific and informed consent. 
• Principle 5: research should enable participation of the groups it seeks to represent
• Principle 6: research should be conducted in a way that minimises personal and social harm.

The prototype was intended to strengthen the legacy of the Disability Rights Taskforce recommendations that had previously been identified and proposed to the Welsh Government. Two recommendations were selected by Taskforce Chairs to research furtherand these formed the basis of the co-production project.

Research topic 1: National Centre for Independent Living in Wales

The first research topic explored the potential for establishing a National Centre for Independent Living in Wales. An online workshop was held with a range of stakeholders to explore ideas for establishing a National Centre. This included exploring what independent living meant in practical terms, how a National Centre could help to support independent living for disabled people and options for possible delivery models. The workshop included: 

• disabled people
• representatives from impairment groups and Disabled People’s Organisations
• local government and other public sector organisations
• the social care sector
• trade unions
• Welsh Government officials 
• individual stakeholders in disability rights activism 

Research topic 2: Disability Confident Employer Scheme in Wales

The second research topic explored ways to improve the Disability Confident Employer Scheme in Wales. Taskforce Working Group members recommended that the Disability Confident Employer Scheme needed improvement and increased engagement with existing avenues of support and advice from disabled people with lived experience and expertise. Three focus groups were held and comprised of employers, trade unions, and representatives from Disabled People’s Organisations and Impairment Groups. They proposed new ideas for the scheme, which included a distinct employer kitemark for Wales, an enhanced scheme with a Welsh element or to seek improvements to the current UK-wide scheme. 

Two research reports were published in June 2025 in accessible versions including HTML in English and Welsh, and executive summaries were published in additional versions including British Sign Language (BSL) and Easy Read. 

The co-production team included Welsh Government social researchers and policy officials, Disability Rights Working Group Taskforce Chairs and a PhD student. Many members of the co-production team had lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society, which included some of the Welsh Government officials. 

Disability Rights Working Group Taskforce Chairs brought research expertise and experience from the academic and voluntary sectors as well as having relevant experience in mixed methods approaches and co-production. 

A ‘co-producer’ is defined as a member of the cross-sector team who worked together to prototype co-production of a GSR report for either of the 2 research topics. 

After the co-production team had been established, the team worked together to co-design and agree the overall prototype vision. This defined co-production for the prototype as “working in equal partnership, learning how to produce research together, involving Disability Rights Taskforce Chairs without over-burdening them, and publishing reports of a good standard as co-produced and co-authored research”. 

The vision set out the co-production team’s intention to adopt ways of working together that valued diversity, were inclusive, transparent and allowed the team to be creative and learn from each other.

During the scoping stages of the co-production prototype, it was agreed that the team would co-produce both research projects based on the 2 Disability Rights Taskforce recommendations as noted above and produce a follow on ‘lessons learned’ project which is the basis for this report. The aims of this project are set out below. 

The overall aim of the lessons learned research project was to understand to what extent it is possible for government social researchers to co-produce social research. Additionally, the research aimed to consider any lessons on applying the social model of disability in GSR. 

The social model of disability focuses on societal barriers rather than impairments, advocating for the same rights for disabled people as their peers. The social model shifts responsibility to society, calling for the removal of barriers (structural, cultural, and discriminatory) which hold back disabled people's participation.

The objectives of the lessons learned research project were:

• to draw conclusions about what level of involvement is feasible at each stage of a GSR project
• to understand the barriers and enablers to co-producing research in government social research
• to understand the added value of doing research collaboratively with people with lived experience and expertise of being disabled by barriers in society and incorporating the social model of disability 

This research report is a presentation of the evidence of the lessons learned following the co-production prototype.

For reference, when ‘the prototype’ is referred to within this report, this means the delivery of 2 GSR social research projects using a co-production approach led by a team of co-producers.

This chapter sets out the methods and research activity undertaken to develop the learning from the prototype. Government social researchers were responsible for delivering the lessons learned from the prototype.

In total, 16 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 5 Disability Rights Taskforce Chairs and 11 Welsh Government officials (social researchers and policy officials) between September and November 2025. 

An independent researcher from Co-Production Lab Wales was commissioned to collect views from the Taskforce Chairs and undertake thematic analysis of the interviews. The independent researcher then shared the themes identified with the Welsh Government social researchers leading on the lessons learned project. 

A senior research officer who had previously been a member of the co-production prototype led a desk-based review of project documents. 

A literature review was undertaken by Welsh Government’s Internal Research Programme of evidence relating to co-production and disability research. 

Additionally, an independent peer reviewer was commissioned to sense check research tools before the fieldwork started, to facilitate a thematic analysis reflection workshop and to review the draft report. The peer reviewer is an associate professor and an academic expert in disability rights and co-production research methods. The independent peer reviewer provided advice and support to the project team, particularly around any methodological or ethical issues.

A purposive sampling approach was taken to intentionally select participants who had previously been involved in the co-production prototype. 

The interviews were held virtually, or participants could choose to provide a written response if they preferred. Participants were asked to state any accessibility requirements in advance. Participants were also provided with the agreed topic guide and supporting documents in advance (see Topic guide and Supporting research information sheet). 

The topic guide was drafted by a senior researcher who had previously worked on the co-production prototype and reviewed by the appointed independent peer reviewer. 

Research questions 

The core research questions were as follows:

• What did we set out to do?
• What were the main achievements and what did not get done (at each stage of the project)?
• What was the added value from disabled people and social researchers working alongside each other to produce Government Social Research (at each stage of the project)?
• What helped and what hindered the co-production and what solutions were found (at each stage of the project)? 
• To what extent were individuals able to fully participate in co-production (at each stage of the project)? 
• What are the main lessons for Welsh Government Social Research in the future to enable it to better reflect lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society?

Two Welsh Government social researchers led the data collection and thematic analysis from 11 Welsh Government officials and one Taskforce Chair. 

The appointed independent interviewer from Co-Production Lab Wales led the data collection and analysis with 4 Taskforce Chairs. 

A semi-structured qualitative approach was taken which allowed participants to tap into areas of greatest interest and experience in their responses. An interview is a commonly used research method to elicit qualitative data and allow for in-depth exploration of an agreed topic. As stated in the Magenta Book’s guidance on evaluation provided by HM Treasury, this research method allows the facilitator some flexibility to probe and more time to explore the views of participants. Qualitative data also helps us understand not just ‘what’ has worked but ‘why’ and ‘how’ an intervention has been experienced the way it has. 

It should be noted that if a research participant provided a written response, this limited the potential to probe responses. However, for some research participants this approach provided a valuable alternative to a face-to-face interview and may have allowed for “a greater degree of temporal ordering, coherence and self-reflection than an oral account” (Using Written Accounts in Qualitative Research by Handy and Ross, 2005 on page 41, available at Cambridge University Press). One of the benefits of providing a written response is that questions can be considered in advance, referred back to and written at a time and pace that suits the needs of the research participant.

Captions were recorded so a transcript could be produced for each virtual interview unless participants provided a written response. The data collected was anonymised and thematic analysis was undertaken. The approach taken followed the 6 steps of systematic thematic analysis described by Naeem and others (A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research, 2023, available at Sage Journals), which were developed from Braun and Clarke (Using thematic analysis in psychology, 2008, available at Taylor and Francies online). This approach was selected as the systematic process enabled clear connections to be made between the data, interpretation and conclusions. This structured approach also ensured a thoroughness given the amount of qualitative data that needed to be analysed. 

The 6 steps are summarised below.

Step 1

Initial phase where researchers dive deep into the data and select quotes that bring the data to life and reflect the research questions.

Step 2 

Involves examining the quotes and picking out keywords that reflect them.

Step 3

Researchers then simplify the keywords by converting raw data into insightful, manageable units.

Step 4 

Codes are then organised into meaningful groups to identify patterns linking to research questions.

Step 5 

Involves understanding and defining concepts emerging from the data.

Step 6 

Researchers interpret the data guided by existing theories to answer the research questions. 

This stepped approach was undertaken by the Welsh Government researcher leading on the project and the appointed independent interviewer from Co-Production Lab Wales. Emerging themes were shared collectively at a thematic analysis reflection workshop with the independent peer reviewer which will be discussed further below. 

Project documents from the co-production prototype were scanned and selectively incorporated by a Welsh Government senior research officer to produce a co-production prototype timeline and overall summary of activity. This was used to complement the topic guide and act as a prompt to remind research participants of what happened across each stage of the co-production prototype. 

The senior research officer leading this work was also the project co-ordinator for the co-production prototype and had in-depth knowledge and insights as they had been involved since the project inception. This was a valuable asset and aided the completeness of the task. 

The prototype documents were then reviewed systematically and summarised to provide an evidence trail which were incorporated into the overall methodology. 

As with the semi-structured interviews, thematic analysis was undertaken. However, for the desk-based review a hybrid approach was adopted. Using the approach outlined by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development, 2006, available at Sage Journals) enabled the research team to use existing codes from the analysis of the semi-structured interviews in a systematic way. 

After the existing codes had been applied to the prototype documents, the social researcher repeated the steps outlined above to consider any new outlier codes or themes. These themes were shared with the project team at the thematic analysis reflection workshop. 

The Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units commissioned an internal, rapid, non-systematic literature review of evidence relating to co-production and disability research. 

The aim of the literature review was to explore and summarise published literature on co-production in research, with a focus on how co-production has been used within government settings to implement or change policy affecting disabled people. 

Similar to that of the desk-based review of prototype documents, a social researcher led a hybrid approach to thematic analysis utilising existing codes from the analysis of the semi-structured interviews. After the existing codes had been applied to the literature, the social researcher repeated the steps outlined above to consider any new outlier codes or themes that were shared with the project team at the thematic analysis reflection workshop. 

In December 2025, a virtual workshop was facilitated by an independent peer reviewer. Workshop attendees included:

• the appointed independent peer reviewer
• the appointed independent interviewer from Co-Production Lab Wales
• a Welsh Government Senior Social Research Officer who led the lessons learned project, and was a previous member of the co-production team and had undertaken a sample of the semi-structured interviews and analysis
• a Welsh Government Research Officer who had also undertaken a sample of the semi-structured interviews and analysis, as well as analysis of the literature review. This research officer had no previous involvement in the co-production prototype
• a Welsh Government Senior Social Research Officer who had previously been a member of the co-production team and led the scoping of the lessons learned project and desk research analysis of project documents

The purpose of the workshop was to review, compare and refine emerging themes drawn from the semi-structured interviews and written responses, the literature review and desk-based review. This also ensured a balanced representation of perspectives were considered and the inclusion of lived experience and expertise when agreeing final themes. 

It is important to acknowledge there is an element of subjectivity to this research given some of the social researchers leading on the lessons learned research were also members of the co-production team from the prototype. 

Methodological reflexivity “helps to enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings by accounting for the researchers’ values, beliefs, knowledge and biases” (Positionality and reflexivity: negotiating insider-outsider positions within and across cultures by Yip, 2023 on page 223, available at Taylor and Francis online). Reflexivity was actively built into the research design from the outset. The role of the independent peer reviewer supported the research team leading this project to consider their ‘relational awareness’ (Yip, 2023) and challenge any assumptions or potential biases. 

The thematic analysis reflection workshop provided a collaborative and reflexive space to triangulate the evidence from the semi-structured interviews and written responses, the literature review and desk research. This evidence is presented thematically in this report. 

Welsh Government social researchers scoped out how to co-produce research by reviewing published evidence and guidance, and consolidating knowledge from other co-production practitioners in Wales and the UK. After exploring different co-production delivery models and the availability of potential suppliers with relevant experience and expertise, it was decided to adopt an in-house approach to carry out the research. Research roles and tasks were shared across the co-production team. The research team then invited the Taskforce Chairs to co-design and co-produce social research together.

The prototype was set out as 3 phases of delivery, agreed with the Chief Social Research Officer for Welsh Government.

Phase 1 

Co-design a vision for the research, including establishing the topics for the research and ways of working together 

Phase 2 

Co-produce evidence which included co-design and delivery of a research workplan, co-writing of research reports and to jointly brief ministers and disseminate the research findings 

Phase 3

Co-production lessons learned research led by Welsh Government social researchers to learn from and evaluate the co-production approach and consider additional ways to capture lived experience and expertise and share that learning from the prototype

The research would set out to prototype the vision of the co-production and explore the feasibility of this within a GSR context. It was agreed that any research decisions would be shared across the co-production team at each stage of the research cycle. 

Evidence from the literature on co-production demonstrates that people tend to have different interpretations of what the term co-production means (Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction by Nabatchi and others, 2017, available at Wiley online library). It was stated that it was important to develop a working definition that all parties involved could agree on. The definition of co-production adopted in this project was set out in the vision for the prototype, which was co-designed and agreed collectively with co-production team members. 

The vision defined the co-production aims such as “working in equal partnership, learning how to produce research together, involving Disability Rights Taskforce Chairs without over-burdening them, and publishing reports of a good standard as co-produced and co-authored research.” This vision set out the co-production team’s intention to adopt new ways of working together that valued diversity, were inclusive, transparent and allowed the team to be creative and learn from each other. 

Asset mapping was used as a method to inform some of the research planning which highlighted strengths across the co-production team and overall ambitions for the project. This approach set out the reciprocal arrangement by exploring what individual co-producers wanted to put into the prototype (their capacity and resource) and what they wanted to take away from this work. This included the delivery of impactful research, having new opportunities to co-deliver research (not just co-design it) as well as learning new skills in research methods, co-production, communication, working accessibly and to demonstrate how research could be done differently in the future. 

A set of co-production principles were adopted to outline how the co-production team could work together. These principles were aligned with the Co-Production Collective’s principles set out below. 

Being human

Valuing diversity of knowledge, experience and different perspectives and building mutually beneficial relationships based on honesty and trust. 

Being inclusive

Removing barriers to participation, recognising people’s strengths and supporting their development. 

Being transparent

Addressing power imbalances and hierarchies and sharing roles and responsibilities.

Being challenging 

Ensuring continuous reflection, learning and improvement and embracing new ideas and ways of working. 

A set of working assumptions about the conditions for success were also articulated and agreed with members of the co-production team. These included:

• sharing and reciprocity, including sharing decisions about how to deliver research and sharing research outputs 
• meeting GSR standards so that findings can better inform policy and decision-making 
• establishing mutual trust
• the need for co-production to be inviting and rewarding for people and organisations involved

The interview data showed there were different experiences and knowledge of co-production before the prototype across the co-production team. In the interviews, some co-production team members from Welsh Government reflected that because the co-production prototype was a move away from a more traditional GSR way of working, they felt pressured to have a strong understanding and refined skillset to deliver co-produced research well from the outset. The prototype was therefore described as a learning curve by some of the researchers involved. Some views reflected from the Taskforce Chairs indicated this was always intended as a prototype project and therefore was not going to be ‘perfect’ the first time but was an opportunity to work differently, learn together and build a strong foundation for this way of working in a GSR setting.

The project vision was co-designed and agreed by all members of the co-production team within which roles were articulated. The literature review highlights a need to establish a clear Terms of Reference to set out a project’s degree of involvement right from the outset as well as to enable re-negotiation if needed (Involving disabled people in social research by the UK Government, 2011 on page 19, available at GOV.UK). Evidence from the desk research suggested the vision and principles were re-visited to guide governance, communications and decision making at points throughout delivery, but some co-production team members reflected on whether there were enough opportunities for this across all stages of the research within the prototype. 

The original proposal within the scoping phase was to deliver feasibility studies on up to 5 Taskforce recommendations. The prototype ultimately delivered 2 distinct pieces of primary research which included research scoping and planning, fieldwork, data analysis, reporting and publication. The agreed research topics focused on 2 Taskforce recommendations that related to the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and an overarching theme of Independent Living. 

Interview evidence suggests that agreeing research topics with co-production team members who have lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society helped to prioritise issues that felt contextually relevant and required more evidence. The co-production team were ambitious and motivated to deliver co-produced evidence that had a strong policy impact. 

There was an increase in research scope where primary research was carried out instead of initially planned evidence reviews. Some reflections in the interview data note that during the initial co-design workshops, it took some time to agree and settle on the final 2 themes that would be explored within the research. One of the issues identified was how to agree on a particular research topic when many issues were felt to be important. Some co-production team members felt having the opportunity to input into scoping discussions was important to ensure different views were heard about what should be prioritised within the available resources and timescales. Being involved in collective discussions was felt to have supported some members of the co-production team to better understand why some issues were prioritised over others within the scope of the prototype. 

These perspectives illustrate that shared decision-making can require additional time from the outset of scoping activity to enable a space for collective discussion and mutual agreement. This is potentially different to other GSR projects which are typically planned within limited timescales that are tied to policy priorities and deadlines. 

Despite reducing the scope of the research from 5 Taskforce recommendations to 2, some members of the co-production team felt in retrospect the agreed scope of the research was potentially too big given the time and resource required to deliver research using a co-productive method.

The project management of the co-production was led by the Welsh Government, where one of the social researchers acted as a project coordinator. The extent of project management activities included Welsh Government officials working to facilitate co-production of the research activities and outputs, organising remuneration activities, organising any reasonable adjustments, procuring suppliers for accessible summaries and managing translation contracts. This role also included planning project timelines and sending out regular communications to all co-production team members. 

There were mixed reflections in the interview data about whether this approach limited the how far the prototype was considered to have been co-produced following the original vision and principles of working. Some members of the co-production team reflected that given Welsh Government had the funding and resource to deliver this work, the prototype did not totally resemble co-production as they would have expected. Some felt that decisions were sometimes being made ‘behind the scenes’ and not all members of the co-production team were involved in all decisions being made. Others suggested the prototype was a good example of co-production and had gone further than other projects they had previously been involved in and should be celebrated. 

Given this was a new approach to delivering a GSR project, some additional and unforeseen tasks arose during the prototype and were described as resource intensive at times by both Welsh Government officials leading on project management and Taskforce Chairs. For example, there were additional tasks for the project management lead to ensure project documents were shared in accessible formats. This was felt by some members of the co-production team to slow down the delivery process at times, which led to feelings of frustration. It was also reflected that the Welsh Government leading on project management occasionally hindered the creative involvement of some co-producers. Some reflected they saw their role as to enable others to co-produce research instead of feeling empowered to directly co-produce themselves. This hidden labour (for example, the secure sharing of project documents, scheduling and communications) demonstrates that co-production not only requires good will and commitment, but also recognition of the invisible forms of work and patience that are needed to sustain participation. 

Reflections from the interviews indicated that having an independent facilitator to act as project manager for the co-production could have mitigated some of the issues identified above.

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 (Payment Policy by the Coproduction Collective, 2024). Payment can also be a tangible way to build trust and demonstrate that everyone’s individual contributions to the co-production are valued. 

However, all payments made to co-producers are subject to complex UK tax and welfare benefit rules and could be counted as additional earnings and potentially result in a loss of welfare entitlement and income. The Social Care Institute for Excellence produced a comprehensive guide to paying people in receipt of benefits (2023). It sets out the complexity of the current HMRC benefits system, which applies different rules to the wide range of welfare benefits. It places responsibility on organisations that pay individual co-producers to "ensure that people who receive benefits are supported with independent welfare rights advice” and to take other actions that can support individuals to liaise with HMRC and the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). 

Given this context, a co-designed remuneration package was developed which included all co-production team members being involved in the design and delivery of the research, instead of financial payment. The ambition was to make the prototype a rewarding experience and meet the ambitions of co-producers by including opportunities for involvement in developing the research design, fieldwork, co-analysis, co-authorship of reports and involvement in dissemination events after publication. The remuneration package also included tailored masterclasses relating to disability rights approaches to research as well as training and coaching in co-production techniques. It was generally considered this approach worked well as it provided opportunities for co-production team members to be involved across all research stages based on their preference for involvement. 

However, the approach to remuneration was also thought to result in a higher time commitment. This subsequently led to some concerns around burden particularly for the Taskforce Chairs who were managing their role within the prototype alongside other roles and responsibilities. It should also be noted that most of the Taskforce Chairs who were part of the co-production team were directly involved in both the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and National Centre for Independent Living research projects. 

The interview data suggested training and masterclasses were well received overall and some of the storytelling methods helped to consolidate new thinking around research methods and collaborative approaches. However, these sessions were less well received by some of the Taskforce Chairs who reflected these sessions required additional time and energy beyond the scope of the prototype (which was already time intensive). It was also reflected that not offering financial payment for their contributions may have limited their engagement in the prototype and some remuneration events were felt to be tokenistic.

The literature states co-production can be a complex and iterative process of collective learning and reflexivity. Co-production as a method for delivering social research was described as resource intensive in terms of time committed by Taskforce Chairs and Welsh Government officials. The interviews suggest it was challenging to accurately anticipate the time and resources that were needed to deliver what was originally agreed during the planning and scoping stages of the work, especially given that co-production was an iterative way of working. Project timescales did exceed initial assumptions, and the project was delivered over a period of 18 months instead of the initial estimate of 6 months and involved frequent and numerous meetings as a co-production team. 

Given this was a new way of working for the GSR researchers involved and that it was a prototype, different facilitation methods were tried and tested during the scoping stage. These were felt to have led to a few false starts, with delays in establishing effective ways of working, agreeing the scope of the research and co-production team members establishing mutual trust. Some reflected it took time to establish a shared understanding of individual expectations of the co-production process, particularly when moving from a more traditional consultative approach to co-production where decisions were mutually agreed. This had an inadvertent impact on project timescales and delivery. 

The co-production team agreed with the aim to publish the research before launching the Disabled People’s Rights Plan consultation to ensure any co-produced evidence could inform consultation responses. This was deemed to have had a further impact on project timescales in trying to align the delivery of the prototype with another Welsh Government initiative at the same time. 

As noted above, some members of the co-production team reflected the ambitions of what could realistically be achieved within the resources and timescales was potentially overestimated at the very start of the prototype. However, this could also be considered as being part of an iterative and participatory methodology. 

As timescales extended, resources were diverted and some elements of the research design were not delivered as planned, including a deliberation event. This led to feelings of disappointment for some members of the co-production team when initial expectations were not met. 

It should be acknowledged that Welsh Government officials were also responsible for delivering a range of projects against other equality research priorities outside of the co-production project, which potentially had an impact on prototype timelines and resource constraints. Resources were increased during the prototype delivery as timescales were extended. However, it was reflected that increasing resource does not automatically create the right conditions for success in co-production given the iterative nature of delivery. The positive engagement of co-production team members who have the relevant skills, expertise and networks are also needed to keep project delivery moving forward. The next chapter considers the role of relationships within a co-production setting.

The power of relationships and individual contributions to the research emerged as a strong theme across the evidence. How and whether power was shared, how consistent this was across different stages of the research within the prototype and how this was felt and communicated differed in experience amongst co-production team members. The quality of relationships established and how far decision making was shared was felt to strongly link to individuals feeling empowered and their overall wellbeing. These experiences are further explored in this chapter.

Relationship building was considered a central aspect of the co-production process. The literature states that co-production projects should be reciprocal in nature (Including ‘seldom heard’ views in research: opportunities, challenges and recommendations from focus groups with British South Asian people with type 2 diabetes by Prinjha and others, 2020, available at Springer Nature Link). This means that members of co-produced research projects should see clear and relevant benefits in recognition of their contributions. Offering members opportunities to improve their skills can help to build confidence and empower people to improve their capacity to do whatever it is that is important to them (From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement by Ocloo and Matthews, 2016, available at BMJ Journals). In a reciprocal co-production relationship, individuals with lived experience and those without can all benefit by learning new ways of looking at research problems through engaging with different perspectives (Inclusive Research in Health, Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology: Beyond the Binary of the ‘Researcher’ and the ‘Researched’ by Layton and others, 2022, available at MDPI journals).

This was similarly reflected in the interview evidence. Researchers without experience of being disabled by barriers in society acknowledged feeling able to produce better-scoped research and ensure stronger engagement with research partners and participants because of the learning experiences gained from the prototype. It was also acknowledged that collective learning from engaging with different perspectives can be cascaded across the GSR profession. Social researchers noted that this could positively inform future social research projects to consider equalities and the inclusion of lived experience in the research cycle. 

The literature states positive working relationships are essential to co-creating an environment in which all parties have a say. It suggests that not everyone will necessarily have the final say in a co-production setting, but the people who hold knowledge about a particular topic should be involved in making decisions. Within the co-production team, each of the Taskforce Chairs brought significant experience and expertise for improving policy areas relating to disability. This supported prototype delivery and maximised the quality of the approach. For example, members of the co-production team had pre-existing working relationships which were seen as a strength to the prototype. It was reflected that co-production also enables people to develop new networks and insights. This was seen to particularly work well for people who thrived on working together. 

The interview evidence suggested clarity of roles within the co-production team, mutual trust and reciprocity were also considered to be project enablers. For both the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and National Centre for Independent Living research projects, roles and responsibilities were agreed during the scoping stages to include who would lead on research tasks such as fieldwork, analysis and reporting. However, some members did reflect there was a need for greater clarity around roles, particularly if there were staff changes and new members joining the co-production team at later stages of delivery. A lack of clarity around specific roles within the team were highlighted as barriers to establishing mutual trust. 

As outlined in the previous chapter, Welsh Government led the project management and resources. Some Welsh Government officials reflected that managing change (for example, during changes to research scope or design) was sometimes challenging given the iterative nature of co-production. Not everything within the original research design got delivered as planned, particularly as timescales were extended. Communicating any changes with co-production team members was seen to manage any changes and mitigate any issues that might arise. When this did not happen or did not happen soon enough, this led to occasional breakdown in communication between co-production team members and feelings of exclusion or frustration for some. Being transparent about any change and identifying opportunities for dialogue was important to ensure clear and effective communication to discuss any concerns which helped to build trust over time. 

Pestoff (Co-production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Concepts and Evidence, 2012, available at Cambridge University Press) emphasises the need to directly address power imbalances in co-production. He argues that this requires intentional strategies to ensure the voices of disabled people are not only heard but also have a tangible impact on decision making and outcomes. Views amongst participants were mixed about whether power was distributed across the research stages. Some co-producers saw progress made towards shared power, although others felt co-production within a government setting limited genuine partnership at times. 

As discussed in the previous chapter, prototype delivery was designed and facilitated in a way that aimed to be rewarding and provide opportunities for empowerment and collaborative influence for co-production team members across all research stages. As an example, members of the co-production team co-designed and co-delivered 3 masterclasses that were delivered by disability rights and co-production academic experts. Online training sessions were delivered as a result in deliberative methods, appreciative inquiry, storytelling and facilitation. Additionally, an in-person away day provided an opportunity for face-to-face networking, to celebrate achievements and to influence the research design for this lessons learned research. The evidence showed the co-production team demonstrated high engagement and a willingness to adapt and work through challenges together to reach practical solutions to any issues arising. 

Despite good intentions with agreeing the aims and co-production vision for the prototype, not all decisions were made equally across all research stages. A lack of clarity around the role of other policy officials outside of the project, combined with changes to prototype scope due to timetable slippages, raised concerns around inclusion and influence for some members of the co-production team. In the interviews, some co-production team members reflected whether it is ever possible to share power equally across all stages of a GSR research project. Shared power may have been particularly challenging to achieve as Welsh Government officials led the project management and were responsible for sign-off of project documents such as topic guides, privacy notices and draft reports. 

There were reflections on whether Welsh Government officials always achieved a balance of working in equal partnership and adhering to the prototype vision, particularly as timescales were extended. At times, this was said to create a tension for Welsh Government officials, who were seeking to avoid burdening the Taskforce Chairs and being seen to lead too strongly, whilst also including all co-production team members in decision making. 

Power sharing was felt to be strongly linked to feelings of inclusion. Some reflected a strong sense of inclusion throughout the prototype, while others reflected on a notable power imbalance at times which made some individuals feel less included or valued. Given 2 established networks initially formed the co-production team (both the Taskforce Chairs and Welsh Government officials), some members of the team reflected in the interviews on a feeling of ‘us and them’ at times. This was potentially exacerbated by Welsh Government officials leading the project management activities as discussed in the previous chapter. Some Taskforce Chairs reflected that Welsh Government officials ‘let them’ get involved which was emphasised as a positive aspect of taking a co-productive approach but potentially illustrates an inherent feeling that Welsh Government officials held more power from the outset. Additionally, some members of the co-production team reflected they often felt they were seen exclusively as government officials and not necessarily as disabled people themselves. It was acknowledged in the interview evidence that there was a real willingness to overcome any tensions that arose during the course of the prototype to agree collective solutions.

Due to the co-production process being an iterative and a collaborative way of working, it was necessary to acknowledge the potential impact on wellbeing and the support needs for individuals participating. 

As described in the previous chapter, the co-production prototype was resource intensive at times. The interview evidence showed that the nature of the co-production process and the research topics had the potential to be emotive. This was sometimes experienced as taking an emotional toll on some members of the co-production team. For some co-production team members, the project was energising and empowering although for others it was, at times, overwhelming. Experiences shared illustrate that spaces were created for discussion and reflection. Some of the Taskforce Chairs shared their experience of feeling able to talk openly and appreciated a process and working relationships that gave space for this. 

The interview evidence suggests that pressure and emotional burden was experienced differently among members of the co-production team. Some of the Welsh Government researchers felt a pressure to not let other members of the team down and to ensure delivery of the research that would align with their expectations, although this was not always achieved. Some Welsh Government officials reflected they felt pressure to deliver a tangible output and keep up with the pace of delivery to ensure evidence was aligned to the broader policy context. 

Similarly, some of the Taskforce Chairs spoke of feeling over-burdened sometimes, with the number of meetings arranged largely attributed to this. There is some nuance between those Taskforce Chairs who were contributing as part of their professional roles and those who were volunteering their time. Those giving time from their professional roles spoke of difficulties of keeping up with the demands of the project alongside the demands of their other roles and responsibilities. 

The interview evidence highlighted a tension sometimes experienced by Taskforce Chairs between wanting to be as involved as possible (including attending all meetings) and having enough capacity and time to be involved, particularly given their roles in representing disabled people. Additionally, the evidence also indicated an inherent tension between team members who were leading on project management to ensure meaningful inclusion for all co-producers at all times whilst also wanting to avoid over-burdening any individuals with the demands of project delivery. 

Any concerns about the burden of work for any co-production team members resulted in steps to mitigate over time, which included communicating an advance a calendar of activities, attempting to restrict the number of meetings and encouraging contributions to be shared offline when needed. Check in meetings were also set up if required to support co-producers. Summer and Christmas breaks were also included in prototype planning, with the project management lead aiming to ensure sufficient time was given when reviewing project documents during busy periods. Towards the end of the prototype, it was agreed that Welsh Government should move to a more consultative approach to reduce workload burden and time commitment. This included agreement for the lessons learned element of the prototype to be led by Welsh Government.

Given this prototype relied upon relationships and working partnerships, there were also examples from the interviews of some co-production team members feeling pressure to ensure all team members were supported well. Co-production team members shared many examples of empathy and support, describing how the prototype provided a space to collectively learn how to work together and better understand one another.  For many co-production team members, establishing new positive working relationships was one of the prototype’s main achievements, despite any challenges they encountered, and was deemed a positive outcome that will outlive the prototype.

Reflections from the interviews included how a co-production prototype such as this could use time more efficiently in the future and establish how to better value the time being given by those involved. Some co-production team members emphasised that adequate remuneration was an important part of valuing their contributions. 

There were positive collective examples of support provided across the team and sharing of knowledge and skills to keep the prototype moving forward. However, it was reflected there is a need for more designated support or advice for any future co-produced research projects. This support should help researchers to consult on any issues where they lack confidence, particularly when undertaking participatory or co-productive methodologies and working in a way that adheres to the social model of disability.

From the outset of scoping, there were high levels of commitment across the co-production team to actively consider how the social model of disability could (and should) be applied. Reasonable adjustments were met when needed for all co-production team members. The interview evidence and desk research demonstrated positive examples of progress and some inconsistencies in these areas, which are set out below.

The social model of disability has been a long-standing commitment of Welsh Government. It focuses on societal barriers rather than impairments, advocating for the same rights for disabled people as their peers. The social model of disability shifts responsibility to society, calling for the removal of barriers (structural, cultural and discriminatory) which hold back disabled people’s participation. 

Building on the disability rights movement’s critiques of the medical model, the rise of the social model of disability marked a significant paradigm shift. Oliver (Politics Of Disablement, 1990, available at Springer Nature Link) deems that advocacy for and development of the social model of disability has been instrumental in advancing disability rights and shaping co-production practices. 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. It asserts that disabled people should be active participants in the creation, development and implementation of policies and services that affect their lives. 

The social model of disability was acknowledged in the early stages of planning both for the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and National Centre for Independent Living research projects and the delivery of the co-production prototype. Consideration was given to the research outputs and ensuring these met social model of disability standards. As an example, when report was drafted a sense check on the use of language was undertaken to ensure it aligned to the social model of disability. 

The interview evidence demonstrated a strong sense of commitment to applying the social model of disability in this prototype by all co-production team members. Some Welsh Government officials reflected on the knowledge and skills they had gained through the prototype in applying the social model principles to social research in practice and how that knowledge can be taken forward into any future social research projects.

Boyle and others (Public services inside out, 2010, available at Nesta) highlight the importance of creating spaces where disabled people can actively engage in co-production processes on an equal footing. This involves providing accessible information, ensuring physical accessibility and fostering an organisation that values diversity and inclusivity. The interview evidence suggested that what is accessible for one person might not be deemed accessible for another and can depend on an individual’s preferences.

The co-production team aimed to make its ways of working as accessible as possible and accessibility was treated as an integral part of the research design. It was reflected by some members of the co-production team that this research prototype went further than other projects they had previously been involved in to ensure the social model of disability and accessibility principles were enacted as enablers across all stages of the research cycle. This involved regularly asking co-production team members to inform the team of any accessibility requirements, which included: 

• ensuring access to the appropriate technology for all co-production team activities
• project documents in Microsoft Word used headings with a ‘style’ to ensure all written outputs were accessible for screen readers
• offering a range of ways for all members of the co-production team to provide input including: attending workshops; one-to-one meetings; sending emails; uploading documents via a secure platform in advance 
• sharing regular communication updates which provided an overview of upcoming delivery and involvement opportunities 
• a budget was obtained to fund any reasonable adjustments, accessible reports and training activities
• aiming to ensure BSL interpreters and palantypists were available for any meetings when needed
• the final research outputs were published in full in English and Welsh in a HTML format and executive summaries were published in HTML, BSL and Easy Read
• the Easy Read outputs were quality assured by people who have a learning disability

The co-production team were proactive in reflecting on accessibility when designing and delivering the co-production. The project management lead also regularly asked if any reasonable adjustments were needed or if there were any personal preferences. This included circulating shorter documents when needed or not using the chat function in a virtual meeting if this was less accessible for some members. 

There were barriers to accessibility experienced by some members of the co-production team at times during the prototype. For example:

• some communication tools were experienced as being less accessible by some members of the co-production team
• securing relevant permission to appropriate technologies delayed project delivery at times 
• there was sometimes a shortage of available BSL interpreters and palantypists which impacted on delivery times
• the iterative way the co-production team worked sometimes required meetings to be set up at short notice, and it was not always possible to secure a palantypist (this resulted in some members of the co-production team relying on transcriptions in virtual meetings at times)

Overall, the interview data suggested positive experiences for co-production team members when considering accessibility and reasonable adjustments across all research stages. Some interviewees suggested it did not feel tokenistic and others reflected how any reasonable adjustments that were made felt empowering and made them feel valued as they did not have to hide that they were disabled by barriers in society. Others reflected working in this way did sometimes take a bit longer to ensure any reasonable adjustments were in place. It was reported Welsh Government researchers were learning in real time about how to actively embed any adjustments into prototype and research delivery and this sometimes took longer than anticipated. 

It was thought that removing barriers by actively asking about reasonable adjustments regularly supported co-production team members to feel included and empowered to participate. The extent to which people stated they felt included was also influenced by other factors such as positive relationships, empathy, mutual trust and power dynamics. It was also reflected that removing individual barriers improved over time when relationships had been firmly established and the team collectively had a better understanding of what an individual’s needs were in advance without team members having to say each time. 

The literature review concluded there were a limited number of studies that explore the use of innovative methods for co-production applied in a government context. The value of undertaking this co-production prototype was deemed to be crucial for building knowledge about how to practically and effectively apply these methods. This chapter explores how the co-production prototype was delivered within a GSR context and what lessons can be learned.

GSR is the professional membership organisation for social research in government. The core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality are an addendum to the Civil Service Code included in the GSR code. 

Two GSR research projects were delivered in parallel. One explored the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and the other explored the potential for a National Centre for Independent Living in Wales. Although the approach across the 2 research projects differed at times, some core examples of working collaboratively across the research stages are listed below.

• The co-production team shared collective insights into disability rights issues to support a broader understanding of the research context (for example, real world experiences of both the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and theme of Independent Living were reflected in the research).
• Joint planning and scoping in the early stages of the research shaped the research questions.
• Evidence gaps were identified together.
• Members of the co-production team contributed lived experience, knowledge and skills to influence the methodology.

• Established networks from the co-production team led to the inclusion of diverse voices in the research (for example, a senior academic, a PhD researcher, Disabled People’s Organisations, Impairment Groups, employers and Trade Unions).
• The language used in research invitations and topic guides was aligned to the social model of disability and tailored to meet the needs and expectations of disabled people.
• There were additional inclusive aspects to the fieldwork, including co-design of the topic guide, briefing meetings to prepare for any focus groups, co-facilitation of focus groups and conducting debrief sessions after focus groups. 
• Debriefing sessions provided opportunities for the group to reflect on themes emerging from the focus groups. 

• A series of co-design workshops were undertaken; these enabled joint decision making about how to co-analyse evidence.
• Co-production team members contributed lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society, expertise, knowledge and skills to influence interpretation of emerging findings and helped to identify qualitative themes that were reported. 
• Report formats were co-agreed to meet social model of disability standards.
• Some co-producers wrote sections of the report and were named as co-authors. 
• The co-production team contributed to ideas relating to dissemination after the reports’ publication.
• Co-production team members co-delivered at different dissemination events. 

One of the benefits of a co-productive approach highlighted in the interviews was the collective insights, skills and expertise from the co-production team, which subsequently ensured the research met an identified legitimate need and did not duplicate any planned research. Working collaboratively with the Taskforce Chairs to agree the research design ensured that any research methods and tools were tailored to meet the needs and expectations of disabled people. 

The interview data demonstrated individual motivations to participate in this work. Some reflected the co-production process was a unique way of working and the first of its kind in their experience. The co-production team shared ambitions to amplify disabled people’s voices and improve things for disabled people. 

Despite these shared motivations to participate in the prototype, a tension sometimes existed to ensure that project delivery remained aligned to the GSR code of practice, particularly around the principle of impartiality. The co-production team included Welsh Government social researchers who work to the GSR code, policy officials and external professionals from academic research and voluntary sectors, some of whom also had a background in social activism. Each member of the co-production team had their own position and perspective within the prototype, and many brought lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society which also directly informed the research stages. 

Evidence suggests for some of the Taskforce Chairs, the motivation to be involved in the research arose from within the context of societal problems directly informed by lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society. This was a potentially different starting point from some of the Welsh Government officials involved in the prototype. Recognising the positionality of all members of the co-production team was crucial to deliver this prototype and if tensions did arise, these were worked through collaboratively.

To provide an example of this, Welsh Government social researchers led the writing of the draft research reports with some of the Taskforce Chairs contributing chapters and reviewing drafts as the work was in progress, providing feedback and steer. However, 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. When working towards agreeing the Disability Confident Employer Scheme report, some of the Taskforce Chairs expressed concern that language used and overall balance of the report did not reflect the strength of feeling from some research participants about the scheme. In response to this, the co-production team worked collaboratively to review any suggestions made against the evidence to ensure any changes to the report were proportionate and followed the GSR code. 

Ethical considerations were important across all stages of the co-production, including ethical implications affecting the co-production team. For example, recognising everyone’s contribution and protecting all co-production team members from harm. 

Members of the co-production team shared reflection and learning about the disability rights principle of “nothing about us, without us”. This principle was attributed as a response to historical injustices experienced by disabled people in social research. Historically, government and academic research had been experienced as extractive, and some disabled people had been treated as ‘vulnerable’ and objectified, with some voices marginalised. 

Participants shared similar reflections during the scoping stages of the prototype after Welsh Government researchers sought advice from a national ethics committee. This was said to have resulted in some anxiety as the outcome suggested a range of safeguarding checks may be required for disabled people involved in the research. Some of the Taskforce Chairs felt that this was disproportionate and that historically treating disabled people as vulnerable by default had excluded them and silenced their voices. A new approach was agreed in response which involved the co-production team reviewing the ethics checklist together and developing proportionate mitigations for the risks identified. One of the lessons identified for future projects is to potentially review any ethical considerations with all members of the co-production team before seeking external advice.

Quality assurance is required for all GSR research tools and research outputs and the usual protocols for GSR reports include sign-off solely by Welsh Government senior social researchers. The prototype initially established a Quality Sub-Group to ensure the GSR standards were upheld. The Sub-Group was made up of some members of the co-production team and a Principal Research Officer with responsibility for sign-off for research outputs and upholding the prototype aims as the research was being delivered. This mechanism ultimately proved to be unworkable given the time needed to facilitate the Sub-Group. Concerns were also raised that given it did not include all co-production team members, this undermined collective decision making. 

After the Quality Sub-Group was disbanded it was agreed a Senior Principal Research Officer who was also part of the co-production team would be responsible for leading on ensuring GSR standards were met and would sign off the final research outputs. The Deputy Director of the Equality, Race and Disability Evidence Units provided advice and a peer review of the draft reports. Some co-production team members reflected having a GSR quality assurance process sometimes worked well as a useful framework to direct project delivery and added rigour to the research ethics and compliance. 

There was also reflection in the interview evidence about whether it is possible to share power equally across all stages of the research cycle within a GSR setting. There were both positive and negative experiences reflected from the Taskforce Chairs about Welsh Government social researchers being seen as ‘holding’ the report. Some co-production team members felt this worked well for them given their capacity whilst others felt this did not align well with the co-production principles and impacted on the overall power imbalance within the co-production team. This raised a broader question of ownership of the final GSR research outputs, and this emerged as a predominant theme amongst the interview evidence. It was reflected that collective ownership of any research outputs is a good measure to consider a project fully co-produced. Although some interviewees did reflect on a feeling of joint ownership by being named as co-authors on the final reports.

The GSR publication guidance acted as clear commitment to publication, and it was acknowledged that knowing there would be a published report at the end of the prototype supported people’s motivations and overall commitment to the co-production. For some, it meant there was something tangible to give weight to something that mattered to disabled people and was considered useful to demonstrate the need for improvements to the lives of disabled people in Wales.

There is a quality standard that Welsh Government GSR reports should be published bilingually (in Welsh and English) and within 12 weeks of report sign off. It was agreed that the final research outputs would be published in HTML format (in English and Welsh), BSL and Easy Read. Given this was an alternative way of publishing reports for GSR, the publication process did take slightly longer (closer to 16 weeks) than the typical 12-week turnaround. Permission from the Chief Social Research Officer was required to extend the timescales and allow flexibility to ensure all outputs were published at the same time.

Welsh Government was the data controller and took final decisions on issues relating to data protection and security. Revisions were made to the standard GSR Privacy Notice and confidentiality agreement templates to incorporate language that recognised the co-productive approach. Separate Privacy Notices were also issued for research participants involved in the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and National Centre for Independent Living research projects to reflect additional detail of the co-productive approach and wider team involvement when collecting and analysing data. The project management lead also supported external co-production team members to access a secure folder when sharing official-sensitive information and ensuring secure transfer. 

Some participants reflected that the government context within which the prototype was delivered sometimes misaligned with the flexibility typically expected from a co-production project. Some of the co-producers reflected on the applicability of co-production as a research approach and whether it might be better used in the future at certain stages of the research cycle rather than across all stages. This could work better to manage workload and burden, although there is a balance to find between enabling pathways to participation that are not considered tokenistic. This would ensure meaningful and equitable inclusion without over-burdening people with multiple research activities across all stages. 

Despite limited government guidance currently available on co-production, the team felt that this research prototype was breaking ground within GSR. It was considered to be an important first step, allowing the Welsh Government to use learning from delivering co-production in a GSR context and to take this learning forward into future social research projects. 

Interview evidence demonstrated that co-production within a GSR setting delivered high quality research which is a considerable achievement. For some co-production team members, they reflected this social research prototype was just the beginning and a springboard to a new way of delivering social research that actively considered the role of lived experience and expertise as evidence and collaborative approaches.

The literature review highlighted co-production as being part of a new methodological approach that combines emancipatory principles with participatory approaches, resulting in a human rights-based methodology (Implementing a Participatory Human Rights-Based Research Methodology: The Unfitness to Plead Project by Arnstein-Kerslake and others, 2019, available at Oxford Academic). Participatory methods treat knowledge production as a collaborative process and aims to address social issues by engaging with those directly affected by them. This builds on previous research by Stone and Priestley (Parasites, Pawns and Partners: Disability Research and the Role of Non-Disabled Researchers, 1996, available at JSTOR), who state that co-production methodologies can serve as ‘emancipatory practices’ with an emphasis on disabled people as research partners. Co-production, therefore, can be viewed through the lens of social activism and as a strategy which values difference, mutual response, and transparent, non-hierarchical networks. 

An important message arising from the interview evidence was that working together with people who have lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society or having an impairment was thought to have improved the overall quality and credibility of the research. It was thought that this was a core aspect of the added value of utilising a co-productive approach when delivering social research. 

For example, for the Disability Confident Employer Scheme research, the co-production team influenced the framing of the research questions and the identification of qualitative themes and interpretation of the research findings. This shared knowledge that was directly informed by lived experience strengthened the co-production team’s understanding of the research context and disabled people’s rights, supporting project planning and data analysis. Lived experiences of the Disability Confident Employer Scheme were also reflected in the research findings and conclusions. 

Similarly for the National Centre for Independent Living project, the research relevance and credibility were strengthened where the findings reflected lived experience through co-designing research questions. Insights from personal and professional experience from some members of the co-production team provided depth on specific issues relating to the theme of Independent Living in a Welsh context. Discussions amongst the co-production team about the appropriate methodology led to a deliberative workshop which was an approach that was deemed to be more feasible and meaningful for the research participants. 

From the outset of project scoping, the co-production team reflected they were keen to capture examples of lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society to bring the research outputs to life, create buy-in for the need for change, to make change happen and to communicate the impact of policy on disabled people’s lives. There are examples in the evidence where the incorporation of lived experience was considered to strengthen the overall policy impact. For example, it was felt the Disability Confident Employer Scheme research was published at the right time considering the DWP were simultaneously considering wider reforms to the scheme at a national UK level. Some members of the co-production team reflected on the sense of achievement having been directly involved with social research that was seen to have a direct policy impact. This aligns to one of the agreed project working assumptions for success which was “research needs to meet GSR standards so the findings can better inform policy and decision making”. 

It was reflected that one of the prototype’s main achievements was to have published 2 robust and useful research reports. For this prototype, lived experience was transformational as it provided a different lens to planning, organising and delivering the research. This was said to improve the typicality and trustworthiness of the final outputs. It was also reflected that the inclusion of lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society within the research was considered a more ethical approach to delivering social research and there should be more opportunities for this in the future. 

Questions were raised as to whether the prototype went far enough to embed diverse lived experiences and consider intersectionality. Suggestions from some members of the co-production project reflected on the need for greater representation in future research and how this will only strengthen the value of meaningful involvement by ensuring different perspectives are considered.

Interview evidence illustrates many positive examples of shared knowledge and learning from the combined expertise of the co-production team. Some interviewees reflected on the benefits gained individually and how the co-production prototype increased confidence and new pathways to participate in social research in the future for people who have lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society. 

For some members of the co-production team, the prototype was empowering and provided opportunities for personal development and growth. Some acknowledged they gained a deeper understanding of disability rights, particularly in the current policy context of issues relating to disability in Wales, as well as delivering research that is accessible and follows the social model of disability. Welsh Government social researchers within the co-production team reflected they felt they were better researchers as a result of this prototype and will apply the learning gained when designing future social research projects. 

Others reflected that they had gained practical insight into research skills and GSR processes and had since worked on other social research projects. These new learning opportunities were championed by some interviewees as one of the prototype’s main achievements. Others reflected on the value of the training opportunities and what they had gained from enjoyable sessions on the use of storytelling methods and learning more about ethical issues in social research. 

The prototype was said to have provided increased leadership opportunities for all co-production team members which was reflected as a positive outcome. Others reflected they had noticed an increase in their resilience, particularly when working on complex research projects that require diverse perspectives and collective solutions. Evidence showed that learning from the co-production resulted from the ongoing compromise and adaptation of co-production team members. This was seen as being part of the co-production process which was iterative and based on negotiation and re-negotiation. 

Some suggested that given the added value of embedding lived experience into social research for both the co-production team and individuals involved, there is a need for more dedicated resource at a strategic level to consider how co-production methodologies could be incorporated into social research in the future. It was suggested there could potentially be increased opportunities for social research advisory roles for people who have lived experience that were financially remunerated. This was viewed as a way to better incorporate diverse voices of those who have lived experience of being disabled by barriers in society in Wales.

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.

Coproduction Lessons Learned Research Project: topic guide for interviews

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. 

Past and present members of the coproduction team have been invited to share their views by reflecting on the topic guide and support sheet for each stage of the project they were involved in. We would like to gather your own experiences and views on the project to understand what lessons we can learn that could be applied to future Government Social Research Projects and more widely. 

In your answers, please try to provide specific and relevant examples from the stages of the project you were involved in. A topic guide support sheet was provided as a reminder of what happened at each stage of the project. If you need reminding of any stage again during this interview, please let me know. 

An information sheet was shared via email with you prior to this interview. This document shared information about the research, making clear that your taking part is voluntary.  Although information collected as part of this interview will be anonymised, due to the distinct roles and working relationships from the co-production project we can’t guarantee complete anonymity. You will therefore have the opportunity to review the transcript following this interview. Do you have any questions before we begin?  

Before we begin, are you happy for me to begin transcription? 

For the interviewer: Please ask all core questions in bold. Interviewers should keep good time and consider how much time is spent on the first few questions to ensure coverage across all questions in the topic guide. Please refer to summaries of each stage if needed as a reminder for participants.

Question 1

Can we start with a brief overview of your role as part of the co-production project?

Question 2

Which stages of the project were you involved in? (Interviewer to note stages to support question routing)

Question 3

What were the main achievements of the project as a whole (and can you say why)? 

Now I will ask you to think about the added value of working together for specific stages of the co-production. 

Question 4

What was the added value from working together as a team (route depending on participant’s involvement):

• when the research was codesigned during the early stages of the project? (You can refer to stages 1 to 3 in the topic guide support sheet to help if needed)
• during the Disability Confident (DC) Employer Scheme research, including planning, delivery, analysis and reporting?
• during the National Centre for Independent Living (NCFIL) research, including planning, delivery, analysis and reporting?
• thinking of the project as a whole?

Prompts

• Did it improve the quality of the research? How?
• What were individuals’ different contributions (e.g., skills, knowledge, time, money, networks, etc.)?
• Were lived experiences and diverse perspectives shared and considered?
• How did individuals benefit from their involvement? Were these benefits sufficiently rewarding to make it worthwhile being involved?

Question 5

In the early stages of the project, the project vision was co-designed by members of the project. This vision was intended to set out the ways of working for co-production to meet the aims of the research.

It was agreed that members should “work in equal partnership, learn how to produce research together, involve taskforce working group chairs without over-burdening them, publish reports of a good standard as coproduced and co-authored research.”

• Does this reflect what coproduction means to you? If no, why not or what does coproduction mean to you?
• To what extent do you feel the project reflected the agreed vision for co-production?

Question 6

Across the co-production project, to what extent do you feel you and other individuals were able to co-produce together? (based on the above agreed vision for the co-production project)

Try to give examples from any part of the project you think would be relevant or important.

Prompts (general coproduction)

• How influential and empowered were you and others?
• Did anything limit full participation in co-production (e.g., statutory rules, GSR ways of working)?
• Do you think this varied through the different project stages and how?

Prompts (social model)

• How accessible was the project? Were there any examples of good practice? Were there any barriers?
• How well was the social model of disability applied?

Question 7

The co-production project was set up and managed as a Government Social Research (GSR) project.

Were there aspects of how the overall project was run that helped coproduction? (Route to next question depending on participant’s involvement) 

Prompts

• What worked well in terms of the project management? (e.g. timetabling, project planning, staffing and financial resource allocation)
• How did Government Social Research principles (e.g. objectivity, impartiality, GSR report formatting) help during the project?

Were there any examples where this worked well:

• During the early stages of the project? (It may be helpful to refer to stages 1 to 3 in the topic guide support sheet)? 
• During the Disability Confident (DC) Employer Scheme research, including planning, delivery, analysis and reporting?
• During the National Centre for Independent Living (NCFIL) research, including planning, delivery, analysis and reporting?
• Across the project as whole including resource and project management (stage 6 in the topic guide support sheet) and how we worked together (stage 7 in the topic guide support sheet)?

Were there aspects of how the overall project was run that hindered coproduction? 

Prompts

• What did not work well in terms of the project management? (e.g. timetabling, project planning, staffing and financial resource allocation)
• Did Government Social Research principles (for example, objectivity, impartiality, GSR report formatting), rules or ways of working act as a barrier to co-production? If yes, how?

Were there any examples where this did not work well:

• During the early stages of the project? (It may be helpful to refer to stages 1 to 3 in the topic guide support sheet)? 
• During the Disability Confident (DC) Employer Scheme research, including planning, delivery, analysis and reporting?
• During the National Centre for Independent Living (NCFIL) research, including planning, delivery, analysis and reporting?
• Across the project as whole including resource and project management (stage 6 in the topic guide support sheet) and how we worked together (stage 7 in the topic guide support sheet)?

Question 8

What are the main lessons for Welsh Government social research in the future to enable it to better reflect lived experience of disability?

Prompts

• What did we do that future projects should ideally adopt?
• What could be improved or done differently to overcome barriers for any future projects?

Question 9

Is there anything else you wish to add that hasn’t been covered today?

Thank participant for their time.

Research information sheet for research participants

Who is doing the research?

This research is being undertaken by Co-production Lab Wales.

Why is the research being conducted?

The co-production project was a prototype for involving stakeholders in Government Social Research (GSR). This was seen as an important way to learn how to improve the quality of social research that is relied upon to inform decisions that affect people’s lives. Coproduction involves sharing decisions and ‘assets’ (which could include skills, knowledge or networks). The overall aim of the lessons-learned project is to understand to what extent it is possible for a Government Social Research department to coproduce research. We would like to identify what level of involvement is feasible at different stages of a project. For example, when it is not possible to share all decisions about a project, when is it appropriate to co-design, to consult or to inform. In addition, it will also consider any lessons on applying the social model of disability in Government Social Research. 

Why have I been invited to take part?

As a member or ex-member of the co-production team, you have been specifically invited to take part to share your views. We wish to collect the views, experiences and perceptions of all past and current members of the co-production project. 

What will taking part involve?

We would like to collect views either via a one-to-one semi-structured interview via video call with a representative from Co-Production Lab Wales or you can submit a written response. Before taking part, we will ask you to verbally consent to indicate that you are willing to participate and understand what your participation involves. Whether you take part in an interview or submit a written response, we will ensure that you receive the topic guide (the questions we will ask) as well as a topic guide support sheet in advance. 

Do I have to take part?

No, your participation in this research project is completely voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether to take part and you do not need to explain your reasons. If you do agree to take part in the research, you can decline to answer any questions asked.

What will happen to my personal information and the recording of the discussion?

Please see the Privacy Notice that accompanies this research information sheet, which describes how we securely handle your personal information and the recording of the online discussion. 

How will my data be used?

All transcripts or written submissions will be anonymised and then analysed thematically. The thematic analysis will inform a report and will be published on the Gov.Wales website. This may include direct quotations that you have provided. The Welsh Government Social Researchers leading on this project will publish the final report in HTML (English and Welsh) which will include an executive summary. The accessible summary will also be published in British Sign Language (BSL) and Easy Read.

Have you considered any potential ethical issues that may arise? 

Yes, and this will be an ongoing consideration. Welsh Government Social Researchers have undertaken a full ethics checklist in advance of this research project commencing. Two ethical risks have been identified. The first is a greater risk of bias given this project is being led by Welsh Government social researchers and is not being delivered using a co-production approach. Several measures are being taken to mitigate and reduce the influence of potential bias, including commissioning an independent organisation who will collect your views and undertake thematic analysis. This organisation is Co-Production Lab Wales, who have a strong understanding and experience of co-production. Co-Production Lab Wales will share anonymised transcriptions or anonymised written responses with Welsh Government social researchers. We have also appointed an independent academic ‘peer reviewer’ to sense check the questions we will ask research participants in advance of fieldwork commencing, the themes that emerge from the data analysis as well as the final draft report. 

The second risk identified is a risk of disclosure of personal identity in the reported findings. We cannot unfortunately guarantee complete anonymity given the size of the sample, the distinct roles of members of the co-production project, and the pre-existing working relationships developed from working closely together. To mitigate against this risk, if you opt to be interviewed as opposed to providing a written response, you will have the opportunity to review, amend or redact any quotes from the transcription that is produced. Participants will be given 7 days after the transcription is produced to make any amendments. Following this, further alterations will not be possible. However, there will also be an additional opportunity for you to review the draft report so you can check you are content with how your views have been written up and represented and to check for any text that might cause unintended disclosure of identity. 

What if I have a query or concern?

Individual wellbeing is always our priority. If you want to talk to us about anything, please do get in touch with the lead researchers and we can arrange a call if needed or respond via email. 

Thank you for considering taking part in this research project.

Researcher: The Equality Evidence Unit
Email:  EqualityEvidenceUnit@gov.wales 

Media: 0300 025 8099

Image

Social research number: 65/2026