Co-production in local government: process, codification and capacity building of new knowledge in collective reflection spaces. Workshops findings from a UK mixed methods study

Peter van der Graaf,Sam Redgate,Mandy Cheetham,Ashley Adamson,Clare Humble

doi:10.1186/s12961-021-00677-2

Abstract

BackgroundCo-production of research evidence is valued by local government to improve effective decision-making about public services in times of austerity. However, underlying structural issues of power (so-called ‘dark shadows of co-production’) challenge this ambition with limited evidence on how to embed research use sustainably. In this paper we reflect on mechanisms for increasing co-production in local government.MethodsThis paper presents findings from a Health Foundation funded research project that explored how a culture of evidence use to improve population health could be embedded in UK local government. Five linked work packages were undertaken using mixed methods. In this paper, we report the views of UK local authority staff who participated in four workshops (n = 54), informed by a rapid literature review and an online scoping survey.ResultsWe identified five themes that facilitate public health evidence use in local government: (1) new governance arrangements to integrate national and local policies, (2) codifying research evidence through local system-wide approaches and (3) ongoing evaluation of programmes, and (4) overcoming political and cultural barriers by increasing absorptive capacity of Local Authorities to embed co-produced knowledge in their cognitive structures. This requires adaptive governance through relationship building between academic researchers and Local Authority staff and shared understanding of fragmented local policy making, which are supported by (5) collective spaces for reflection within local government.ConclusionsCreating collective spaces for reflection in between government departments allows for iterative, interactive processes of co-production with external partners that support emergence of new governance structures to socially action the co-produced knowledge in context and build capacity for sustained evidence use.

Highlights

Co-production of research evidence is valued by local government to improve effective decision-making about public services in times of austerity
The National Health System in England is divided between commissioners and providers van der Graaf et al Health Res Policy Sys (2021) 19:12 of health and social care services, with local authorities having a particular responsibility for public health
A new definition of co‐production in local government? In short, co-production of knowledge can be simultaneously envisioned as a process, codification, and capacity: a contextual process of shifting roles and power balances that codify different types of knowledge at various stages in iterative and highly interactive structures governed by various actors, networks and institutions to sustainably embed the co-produced knowledge in their organisations and cultures by creating a shared language and capacity to absorb this knowledge. These three characteristics of co-production echo the building blocks identified by Denis and Lehoux [34] relating to the organisational use of knowledge, which they describe as knowledge as codification, knowledge as capabilities and knowledge as process. To these three building blocks of co-production we add the importance of context and the need for new governance structures to sustain knowledge use in Local government (LG), which are linked to the concepts of adaptive governance and absorptive capacity

Summary

Introduction

Co-production of research evidence is valued by local government to improve effective decision-making about public services in times of austerity. (foundation trusts, community organisations and private companies) of health and social care services, with local authorities having a particular responsibility for public health. In their role as commissioners, local authorities are keen to co-produce services with service users and providers informed by the best available evidence, including academic research of (cost-) effectiveness. Decision making is influenced by personal, social and political processes [4], in which tacit knowledge and other forms of evidence, such as local monitoring data, often trumps research evidence [5] To overcome these barriers, several authors recommend closer interaction between public health practitioners and academic researchers [6]; progress remains slow [7]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion