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

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.