Intentions, language and ladders

I was in a meeting yesterday afternoon, discussing potential plans for a co-production workshop. During the meeting we discussed how we sometimes get stuck on the language of co-production, and whether it’s ‘true co-production’ or not…?

I think that’s a valid conversation to have, but behind the language there is something more: intention.

I think the authenticity of involvement and co-production depends a lot on the intention of the person holding the space. Are they engaging in this work because they understand it has value, or are they doing it to mimic ‘good practice’, without really understanding all the mechanisms and moving parts within it?

As a youthworker, I learnt about the Ladder of Participation, which moved from passive, through engaged to active participation. (In the link above they’re talking about citizenship, but in practice the ladder can be applied to a range of settings.)

In the meeting yesterday someone mentioned about a variety of engagement opportunities being valid and I was reminded of the Lattice of Participation developed by Larkin et al. In this model they offer a mixture of starting and engagement points. They point out that it’s not always helpful to view participation as a hierarchy because that doesn’t take account of the capacity of the individual. If someone has caring responsibilities or is living with complex health conditions, they won’t necessarily have capacity to be a co-applicant on a research grant or attend a series of meetings. They might only be able to manage one meeting or completing a questionnaire…but for that individual, in those specific circumstances, that involvement is as meaningful as a year-long commitment to a steering group. What’s missing from the Ladder of Participation is context.

For the families that colleagues in yesterday’s meeting are working with, who have children with complex needs, they may have very limited capacity, but their involvement (if it’s valued and acted upon) could be as significant as a PPIE co-applicant.

Where am I going with this? Well, I think it’s important to help people understand that co-production is about intention: the intention to share power, decision-making and information. The intention to orientate the focus of the work to reflect the priorities and lived experience of the community members, not just the research question. Going through the motions and ticking off components (Community mtg? Check. Tea & Coffee? Check. Payment forms? Check) isn’t enough if the researcher isn’t committed to acting on what they’ve learnt.

I’m sure we all know this, and I suspect I’m singing to the choir (!) but I think this is one of those things which needs ‘saying out loud’ rather than assuming that people will infer that from the checklist 😉

I shall leave this with you to ponder on…