Co-production of Government Social Research: lessons learned from a Welsh Government and Disability Rights Taskforce prototype - Co-production and involvement through the GSR stages

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.