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

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.