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

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.