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

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.