Abstract
AbstractFunding for care service research is increasingly subject to the satisfaction of two requirements: public involvement and adoption of validated outcome tools. This study identifies competing paradigms within these requirements and reveals significant challenges faced by researchers who seek to satisfy them. The focus here is on a study co‐produced between academic researchers and people with experience of adult social care services. It examines to what extent research studies can conduct high‐quality public involvement and genuine co‐production of knowledge, whilst attempting to produce quantifiable outcome scores. Findings add to debate around how to incorporate diverse perspectives in research, which may draw on incommensurate accounts of validity and reliability. Findings also highlight constructive attempts by academic and co‐researchers to make the combination of approaches work in the field. These small scale acts of researcher agency indicate some scope to combine the two approaches in future research studies. However, conclusions foreground the importance of broader awareness of how tensions and power imbalances related to this combination of approaches play out in social policy research practice.
Highlights
Two approaches to social policy research have become prominent in England: an emphasis on validated outcome tools to assure quality across health and social care (Department of Health, 2016, 2017) and public involvement through co‐production (Department of Health, 2007, 2012; Simmons, 2011)
Philosophical inquiry into the process of co‐production warns of fundamental tensions that arise from attempts to combine the diverse traditions of political, organisational, professional, and public domains (Bevir, 2013; Carr, 2007)
The analysis reveals the competing experiences, knowledge traditions, and clashes experienced by co‐researchers and academics
Summary
Two approaches to social policy research have become prominent in England: an emphasis on validated outcome tools to assure quality across health and social care (Department of Health, 2016, 2017) and public involvement through co‐production (Department of Health, 2007, 2012; Simmons, 2011). These trends are visible internationally, as supranational initiatives focus on harmonising approaches and expanding the evidence base about outcome measures and involvement/co‐production (Brett et al, 2014; Cochrane Consumer Network, 2017; ICHOM, 2017; Science Business, 2017). Philosophical inquiry into the process of co‐production warns of fundamental tensions that arise from attempts to combine the diverse traditions of political, organisational, professional, and public domains (Bevir, 2013; Carr, 2007)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
