Inside co‐production: Stakeholder meaning and situated practice

Crompton, Amanda

doi:10.1111/spol.12466

Cited by 37 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the work of the United Kingdom government's Department for International Development includes the use of embedded evaluation (DFID, 2013). 1 Embedded evaluation also links with other approaches including real time evaluation where evaluation takes place alongside the delivery of an intervention and contributes to operational change (Jamal & Crisp, 2002); realist evaluation, which highlights the importance of context and individual responses (Pawson & Tilley, 1997); and co-production based approaches, where participants are involved in the design and delivery of social policy interventions (Bevir, Needham, & Waring, 2019;Crompton, 2019;Richardson & Durose, 2016). This article examines the outcomes of a food insecurity intervention and considers the benefits and challenges of an embedded evaluation approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social policy and embedded evaluation: Assessing the impact of a food insecurity project in the United Kingdom

Purdam

Silver

2020

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social policy and embedded evaluation: Assessing the impact of a food insecurity project in the United Kingdom

Purdam

Silver

2020

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These guidelines ensure that participants are fully included in the research process equally and their perspectives and knowledge is respected and valued. Co-production offers an overarching methodology that therefore adds to the credibility, confirmability and dependability of qualitative approaches (Durose et al, 2017) and reduces elitist narrative (Crompton, 2019) that may carry an academic bias in qualitative interpretation. Ethical approval was obtained from the university ethics committee for the 'Voices from the Brink' project of which this study is a part (see 'Data collection').…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘I’m getting the balls to say no’: Trajectories in long-term recovery from problem substance use

Webb

Clayson²,

Duda‐Mikulin

et al. 2020

J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses individualisation theory to explore identity transition in substance misuse recovery. Identity narratives gained over 4 years from co-produced video/audio interview and video diary accounts were co-productively collected and analysed using framework analysis. Results indicate a trend towards individualistic and agentic identity as recovery trajectories progress over time. Within-case analysis demonstrates agentic growth for most participants, from early-stage gratitude and reliance on support groups to self-determination and independent decision-making. This early work exploring longer-term recovery adds to the current recovery and social identity discussion and provides evidence of identity growth in longer-term stages of recovery.

show abstract

“…Third, users should have all the abilities necessary to collaborate in partnership with providers, especially in the healthcare sectors where the disparity of competences, skills and knowledge between users and professionals is high [40,41]. The lack of equal knowledge and information makes vulnerable users feel inferior and inadequate, reducing their willingness to participate in and contribute to co-production activities [42]. Finally, time, resources, trustful relationships and competences may still not be enough to prevent co-production failure.…”

Section: Co-destruction With Vulnerable Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential Pitfalls of Co-production: An Overview on the Co-design of Public Services with and for Family Caregivers Living in Rural and Remote Area

Gheduzzi

Masella

Morelli

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Co-production has been widely recognized as a plausible solution to reduce users’ dissatisfactions, service providers’ inefficacy and to diminish conflicts in relations between users and providers. However, this enhancement of co-production has started to be query: co-production is not always a panacea and its effects may not be always fruitful. To understand and prevent unsuccessful users and providers’ collaboration, the recent literature has stated to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates the possible factors that may facilitate the shifting of a co-production process applied to family caregivers of older patients living in rural and remote area, into a co-destruction process by looking at the whole service network. Methods: To investigate this open topic, we performed a single case study by looking at a longitudinal project (Place4Carers) that aimed at co-producing a new public service with and for family caregivers of older patients living in rural and remote area. We organised collaborative workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the perspectives of family caregivers and service providers on the co-production process. As part of the research team that participated at the co-production process, the authors joined the reflections with a reflexive approach. Results: Results confirmed the occurrence of some causes of co-destruction suggested by Jarvi’s model during the co-production process: insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to change from caregivers and inability to serve from providers. Moreover, they identified the difficulty of creating a cohesive partnership between research members as a possible pitfall of co-production. However, all these causes did not imply an inevitable process of co-destruction. Conclusions: Our article suggests that pitfalls identified by Jarvi and the cultural differences within research members can actually influence co-production but do not inevitably lead to co-destruction. Moreover, we argued that co-creation and co-destruction processes might coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent and recover from co-destruction effects. To this ends, conviviality could be a powerful tool to avoid lack of trust and create a successful co-production.Plain English SummaryCo-production, defined as ‘the provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized service providers and service users or other members of the community, where all parties make substantial resource contributions’[1], has been widely recognized as a plausible solution to reduce users’ dissatisfaction, providers’ service inefficacy and to diminish conflicts in relations between users and providers. However, the effectiveness of co-production has started to be queried. This paper investigated the possible factors that may facilitate the shifting of a co-production process into a co-destruction process by looking at all the actors of the service network. To this end, we performed a single case study by investigating the co-production of new public service with family caregivers of elderly people living in rural and remote area, a local home care agency and researchers. Participants were interviewed about pro and cons of the co-production process. The results highlighted that the effectiveness of co-production was limited by some pitfalls: insufficient level of trust, mistakes, inability to change and inability to serve. Moreover, a difficulty of creating a cohesive partnership between research members has been highlighted as a challenging factor in the co-production process. However, all these factors did not imply an inevitable process of co-destruction. Indeed, the process of co-production resulted to have both pitfalls and benefits. Therefore, researchers and service providers should facilitate the shifting from negative toward positive effects of co-production. To this ends, conviviality could be a powerful tool to avoid lack of trust and create a successful co-production.

show abstract

Inside co‐production: Stakeholder meaning and situated practice

Cited by 37 publications

References 37 publications

Social policy and embedded evaluation: Assessing the impact of a food insecurity project in the United Kingdom

Social policy and embedded evaluation: Assessing the impact of a food insecurity project in the United Kingdom

‘I’m getting the balls to say no’: Trajectories in long-term recovery from problem substance use

The Potential Pitfalls of Co-production: An Overview on the Co-design of Public Services with and for Family Caregivers Living in Rural and Remote Area

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About