I am becoming a veteran of alliances, such as the Alliance
for Action and the Alliance for Useful Evidence, as well as working in various
third, statutory and academic collaborations. Not surprisingly, I believe in
the value of working together to try to overcome complex problems: and perhaps
co-production is the holy grail of collaborative activity, when power and roles
are truly shared. However, preparing for a talk today on the co-production of
evidence, I was struck again by the huge potential but degree of change that’s needed
for co-production to happen.
An appetite for
co-produced evidence
Carnegie UK Trust has a long standing interest in the use of
evidence in the pursuit of improved societal wellbeing. It also believes that giving
people more control enables wellbeing. These objectives have led us to think about
the possibility of co-produced evidence. The appetite for this was demonstrated
in a
recent survey where over two thirds of respondents reported they
participate in the co-production of evidence. This also hints at one of the
issues that might be hindering co-production: lack of conceptual clarity. What
do people mean when they say they participated in the co-production of
evidence? If we were to measure that activity against the principles of
co-production how far would it measure up?
We want to hear your
ideas
One of the reasons that I ask this is because, looking
around it is difficult to find many instances of co-produced evidence. In the
discussion paper, the Scottish
Approach to Evidence, we concluded that the Scottish policy context with a
focus on partnership and people is ripe for the co-production of evidence, but
the evidence base lags behind. This includes both examples of co-produced
evidence and evidence for the impact of co-production on outcomes. Two
different concepts, but ones that have sometimes been conflated, to the
possible detriment of co-produced research. Last year, to encourage more
co-produced evidence, at a Roundtable
with Newcastle University’s Institute for Social Renewal, we called for more
clarity on what is good quality co-produced evidence. Following this, The Trust
is continuing to explore how to assess the rigor and value of co-produced
evidence, and I’d be delighted to hear your ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment