Contemporary Coproduction: theory policy and practice (guest blog: Dr Stuart Muirhead)

Contemporary Coproduction: theory policy and practice

Wednesday 18th March, Iris Murdoch Building, University of Stirling

A reflection on the day

The day started well for me with a morning walk through the rather picturesque grounds of the Stirling University Campus. It sits in a prime location at the bottom of the Ochil Hills, and it looked particularly nice on a crisp, sunny morning. This stroll was followed by arrival and a welcome hot coffee, while happily bumping into Claire Lightowler of the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice on the way into the room.

Richard Simmons introduced the day as we got settled and we went straight into a couple of presentations by folk from the University of Birmingham. Catherine Needham explored what we consider as evidence, reminding us of the importance and value of lived experience and practice wisdom, as well as the more formalised evidence we are all perhaps more familiar with. Two things really hit home to me here. Firstly, coproduction must be additive and not substitutive. In other words – we must add value from coproducing, we can’t just fill gaps. Secondly, processes and ways of coproduction can’t just be copied from context to context. These processes shouldn’t be replicated but they should be assimilated into different places.

Next up was Tony ‘Tornado’ Bovaird from INLOGOV and Governance International. He gave a fantastic overview of where value sits in our society – is this in the formalised economy, or is it in the informal and social interactions that we take part in every day? We must re-balance service outcomes, personal outcomes and social capital outcomes. He also highlighted that we have a rich resource base in this country and it is not a lack of resources that we suffer from but a resource matching problem. We need to work with who is up for working together and not ignore the real strengths that exist.

After the break, when I had the chance to talk to Claire Brynner of What Works Scotland, we had two more presentations around the theme of ‘disrupting coproduction’. The first from Julie Christie who is exploring dementia in resilience in her PhD project. She ended with point that really seemed to resonate with the room – is coproduction done with active citizens or does coproduction help in activating citizens? Do the loudest voices get heard? Are these the white middle classes with loudspeakers and a voice this is disproportionately heard by those in power (a point highlighted by Peter Matthews)? Julia Fitzpatrick from Horizon Housing Association was our final speaker of the day and made some extremely pertinent points. The one that hit home with me was that we must not “equate a place at a table with involvement” – there are always power issues being played out and we must recognise these, and address them. In the following discussion, power came out as a central theme, and there was a reminder given that coproduction should be about increasing social justice and equality – just as public services should be.

After our impressive lunch of bento boxes and fruit we started enacting a bit more coproduction during the day. We went into a World Cafe with groups moving about the room. Each group started with a question and the discussion was recorded by a scribe. As the groups moved round every ten minutes, the scribe stayed put. Every time the group did move on, they left a provocative question for the incoming group. I scribed and you can see the direction of the discussion below:

Questions	Broad discussion journey…
Group 1 – Opening questionCan coproduction allow for resources to be redistributed to create more equitable outcomes?	Can we make communities more equitable by having a more unequal distribution of services? Why do people get involved in causes – anger, passion, love Is politicisation useful – start with something small and mobilise from there
Group 2 – Prompt questionDoes coproduction help people frame and influence issues that are important to them?	People are too easily marginalised from certain areas and backgrounds – too easy for them to go from being a person with a problem, to a problem person… We should strive towards an even playing field There is disproportionate middle-class voice Coproduction should be a power to break these barriers and inequalities down – this should be through building confidence and self belief We have became too individualistic as a society
Group 3 – prompt questionCan we use coproduction to become a more caring society, increase empathy, and to understand each others problems and perspectives?	Coproduction should be underpinned by respect – do good services respect people? Should be more linked in with implicit democracy Move people out of comfort zones Understand motivations for why people take part in coproduction
Final question How do you address different perspectives, motivations and values in coproduction?	…

After hearing from the other group scribes we had a quick break followed by different engaging activities designed to prompt discussion and group cohesion. My own group had a wide discussion around coproduction and began to build up a mini-lego community (see below). We actually started this hour session by getting to know each other and exploring what each other had to say, as opposed to beginning with a specific question. I found having the lego in front of us, and building our own little projects, meant there was more time for us to sit in comfortable silences and take time in our interactions. It was only in the last ten minutes that we started physically putting all our creations on the board and linking these up with lego pathways. We praised and prodded each others creations, ranging from an allotment/garden (top right), to the oriental/ MC Escher building (top middle), to the unicorn towers (middle left – unicorn is unfortunately hidden), to the burrowing octopus of cause/effect tentacles (bottom left), to the rather prosaic co-prod letters (which was my own stilted creation!)

We then heard what the other groups had been up to, with one using a circle to subvert the Brooks Newmark quote: “The important thing charities should be doing is sticking to their knitting and doing the best they can to promote their agenda, which should be about helping others.” Experienced knitters and complete novices came together to chat and support each other to produce a wonderful collage of squares (see below).

In the following discussion we started to explore themes of creativity, improvisation, innovation and support that had really exemplified some of the aspects that were coming through this final session.

Thanks to everyone there on the day, Stirling Uni, and especially Peter Matthews (@urbaneprofessor) for organising the day – let’s keep on prodding each other to work in more effective and thought provoking ways.

Cheers,
Stuart Muirhead, IRISS

December 4, 2013February 3, 2017

Let Them Eat Cake

On 16th July 2013 the Guardian raised the important question:

“Is food the future of philanthropy?”

This was as part of their report on Free Cakes UK – a service that matches keen amateur bakers with families struggling to provide their child with a birthday cake – delivering its 1,000th cake. Proving that perhaps, in this case anyway, cake is the answer to big questions.

Meanwhile, somewhere else in the world (Glasgow), on the same day, I (Fiona Wood) was starting my journey as a new IRISS employee.

I came to IRISS from a series of academic research posts in collaboration with various Scottish Higher Education Institutes and NHS Boards but I don’t have a healthcare background. In fact my background is as an academic researcher specialising in designing programs of activity for children’s outdoor play and learning.

So what’s it like for an academic/designer suddenly finding they work in the field of social services after years of working in education and health care? Well, let me tell you….

IRISS is different from any other place I’ve ever worked before. The office is large and open with all staff (including our director) sitting in the same space. At one end there are three sofas used for meetings, chatting, eating, reading and so on.

At the other end there is a bright pink wall with the words “learning, partnership, creativity” embossed in white across it. Below this phrases like “you are what you share”, “an essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail” and “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” inspire the organisation.

There is bunting on the ceiling and always a fresh supply of chocolates, biscuits, lots of fruit and, of course, cake!

But, does this style of working work I hear you ask? Well, a colleague, also new to IRISS, summed it up pretty well I think when they said:

“Happier workers are more productive. Get the environment right and everyone functions properly and you produce some nice work”.

So yes, I think it works.

Now, how does this compare to other organisations I’ve worked for? Well, before IRISS I worked as a researcher in a hospital. There were not open offices, there were not sofas or relaxed spaces for staff to interact with one other and there certainly weren’t any pink walls with inspirational quotes. But there was cake.

However, in the hospital the cake wasn’t shared across hierarchies because there were doors in the way. The doctors had their cake; the nurses had their cake; the researchers had….well we would steal everyone else’s cake. The point is, everyone had a specific role and they stuck to it. They didn’t share ideas, they didn’t listen to one another, and they didn’t know what was going on with each other’s work. Instead, day in, day out, they came in and did their work and didn’t stop and think and question one another. This is not co-production.

At IRISS, there is a lot of listening and asking colleagues what they are working on; there is a lot of sharing ideas; and a lot of engaging with one another and openly questioning each other in a friendly way. Each of the staff members have a broad range of skills that they creatively feed into the organisation. This supports the wide variety of projects currently taking place within IRISS, allowing a spectrum of social service issues to be addressed and considered from a wide perspective.

The resulting difference is that in IRISS there is no room for egos or hierarchies.

I am reminded of the striking difference between these two approaches when I attend meetings with external partners. I’ve observed Health and Social Care professionals pointing the finger at one another and complaining about the ‘arranged marriage’ they are facing at the start of 2014. There is no conversation, no listening, no questioning, no engaging – instead I see more closed doors, more talking, more blaming.

It is clear more needs to be done to create a happy and collaborative relationship between these groups.

Perhaps they could learn from IRISS.

But what is the solution I hear you ask? Well, it’s been 9 weeks so far and I’m not yet sure, but as a starting point I suggest that if we really are going to work together to make a difference for people in Scotland receiving care through Social Services then we have to be willing to listen to one another and actually hear what the other parties are saying.

In short, if you’re going to have your cake and eat it, at least share it with your colleagues too [and that includes your external colleagues and those from other sectors].

July 11, 2013September 27, 2013

Radical vs. Incremental… not that old chestnut?

It is continually recognised that the current economic climate requires new ideas and creativity to maintain and achieve quality support for people using social services. In social services, we are constantly told that ‘more of the same won’t work’, we have to ‘do more with less’ and that what is necessary are ‘ever-more innovative ways of providing social care that both meets the needs of the user and is at a lower cost’ (Christie, 2011[1]).

Right, so we need to innovate then.

But what do we mean by this? Are we expecting the emergence of an army of new social entrepreneurs? Are we expecting people to innovate alongside maintaining the status quo within their own organisations and environments? Some other combination?

For the past day or so, I’ve been struggling against my inner pragmatist to sit, reflect, and write down my thoughts about just two questions:

What is innovation in the social services sector?

What could it be?

Questions, you might think, that would be relatively simple to answer.

It would be easy to rhyme off a number of definitions and dichotomies from leading scholars and practitioners alike. We could get into theoretical debates about the difference between radical and incremental innovation, disruptive and continuous, what makes social innovation ‘social’ (more on that in another blog, I think). But what I’m interested in, really, is what this means practically for people on the ground. What it means for the practitioners working tirelessly day in and out to support people, for the middle managers who are being pulled in 101 different directions and for us, as an intermediary trying to build the capacity of the workforce so that they can have ideas and create an environment where those ideas can flourish.

One thing we know about innovation is that it is complex, it’s not-linear and it’s messy. It can start with a genius idea from a practitioner, it can start with a problem or policy and it can start with a need. Depending on where and how it starts greatly depends on the ease with which the idea will be implemented in practice (sorry!). The system that we have set up for social services in Scotland scarcely allows incremental change, never mind radical change (Duffy, 2013 – forthcoming). Therefore I’ve long since thought that radical innovation happens more easily on the fringes of systems – from the ‘outside-in’.

The current policy focus is that which is seeking radical innovation. Everyone gets excited about brand new or emerging ideas, radical projects or interventions that have been thought up that will revolutionise the way we work. These are all great (excellent, in fact) but they will likely come across a number of difficulties when we get to embed them within the system. When adding new ideas into an existing system it is usual that it will be difficult for that system to yield to what it is the new idea has to offer. Implementing these types of ideas will demand that people who use services, practitioners and those higher up the chain have a perspective which is comfortable with ambiguity and not afraid to get things wrong. All entirely possible. All very exciting. It’s the ‘how’ that intrigues me.

More recently, thinkers in the area (see for example, Mulgan, 2013[2]) are beginning to highlight that innovation may be more likely to come from connecting the dots between a range of different things, putting commonplace ideas together and making connections between them. Cleaning up a system which incorporates lots of different ideas can be innovative itself without any particularly novel components. These everyday innovations are vital, and we should not lose focus on them. These are the types of innovations that may be more likely to get taken up in practice, but they so rarely get the glory.

At IRISS, we are interested in understanding what works to enable effective implementation of both these approaches. In particular, we are interested in exploring how an idea becomes embedded in practice, how you stop doing what you were doing before, and how you share what went well and what didn’t.

For both types of innovation, though, we know that there is a need to remain outward facing. If ideas are a new mixture of old(ish) elements, it is important to constantly expand our experiences and horizons and expose ourselves to the ‘new’ and ‘different’. There is much that we can learn from what is happening on our doorstep, or round the corner, even, but we aren’t always conscious of what is there as we get caught up in the distraction of our own organisation, lives and situation.

And that is one reason that we have created this blog. It is all too easy for us at IRISS to stay behind the desk, get our heads down and never look up. But we won’t. We know that others are exploring and grappling with key concepts in this field and we want to learn and share our thoughts and ideas as well as hear from others – hear from you. We also know that there are enough of us that want to change and make a difference and we believe that that change is entirely possible.

We hope to use this space to encourage debate, discussion and to greet guest bloggers – so get in touch; we’d love to hear from you.

More soon.

[1] Christie Commission (2011) Commission on the future delivery of public services, Edinburgh: Scottish Government
[2] Mulgan 2013 podcast: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/geoff-mulgan-achieving-more-less-innovators-catalyst)