The commitment to engage people with lived experiences in professional health, care and social work education is well established. Collaborating in equal partnerships via ‘co-production’ can facilitate this engagement.  

For the purposes of co-production in the educational curriculum, this means that people with lived experiences of using social work services are included as equals within the course team.

Resources are recommended at the end for wider reading about the purpose and value of co-production. The focus of this article is on applying principles that challenge conventional academic processes and promote collaboration and equal knowledge to enhance the quality of teaching and learning.

Co-production in social work education

Social work education has pioneered the involvement of people who receive services and support in education, gaining formal recognition of this through policy and funding commitments since 2003 (Department of Health, 2002). Because of this, other higher education courses can learn from social work education on how to co-produce education. Co-production can involve people in different roles, e.g., students, and employers, however, the historical background should be recognised; co-production was first conceptualised to describe the lack of recognition of service users in service delivery (Ostrom and Ostrom, 1977). It is about working in partnership whereby service providers share power with those who receive care and support, to reach a collective outcome. 

Key principle of co-production in education

This is a suggested key principle to guide co-production (Casey 2022).

Traditionally, people with lived experiences of services and support are invited to participate in education as visiting speakers, lecturers, or other versions of sharing their stories with students. (It is important to consider all stakeholders in the process. Students and employers may not have enough time to commit to having equal roles in course co-production, but they could be ‘invited to the table’ and be involved in meaningful ways.)

Whilst both the social work and nursing professions have sought to extend engagement across a wider range of activities, regulatory frameworks and standards assess ‘involvement’ rather than ‘co-production.’ It would be helpful if regulators directed higher education institutions (HEIs) to move beyond such consultation frameworks. 

Co-production rather than consultation requires a fundamental shift in curriculum planning and preparation. It requires rethinking how to work together, finding new ways of relating to people with lived experiences, and challenging power structures. Building relationships, skills, and methods for achieving this requires an investment of time which is the first step to co-creating the right environment for meaningful participation.

For a culture of equality to be fostered, everyone involved in co-production needs to know each other. Agreeing on how we work together can be most helpful in establishing respectful working and mutual understanding from the outset. Useful guidance for this has been developed by Shaping Our Lives (Beresford, 2013).

This guidance emphasises that everyone is different and thinks differently about things. It is vital to take the time to listen to each other, respect different communication methods and ensure everyone understands what is being discussed.

In HEIs, there is usually one person leading curriculum development activities, such as a lecturer who may also be the course lead. One suggestion for promoting mutual understanding is for the lead roles to be shared with someone with lived experience so that all planning is informed by perspectives from different educational backgrounds, i.e., educator from an academic/institutional perspective and educator from experience. Co-leadership establishes a commitment to communicating effectively with all involved.

Put simply, co-production involves sharing power, decision making and ownership of the process with regular reviews. Co-production is not a one-off activity, it is a continuous process which benefits from a culture of continuous learning. 

One of the first things to establish when everyone comes together is an agreed shared definition of co-production. The term ‘co-production’ is open to wide interpretation and inconsistent definitions. It is argued that at its most effective co-production leads to transformation. (Needham and Carr 2009). It is important to define co-production clearly otherwise there is a risk that its meaning is weakened and its potential to transform services is reduced. The co-production collective proposes it is,

It is generally accepted that best practice for involving people with lived experience in education includes remuneration for time and expenses. One of the earliest pitfalls to avoid is clarifying prior to activities commencing what budget is available and how people will be remunerated. This could involve arranging contracts or voucher payments and identifying dates when these will be paid. Sorting out finances in relation to individual requirements early on can avoid frustration and assist with schedules running smoothly.

Related to this, it is important to identify availability and flexibility when and for how long can people meet, creating conditions to accommodate changes where necessary. Scheduling can become one of the most time-consuming factors; clarifying plans and capacity saves time and helps with prioritising where people dedicate their time. Another pitfall to avoid is to assume everyone should be involved in all meetings or activities; it is important that people choose the right levels of participation for them, matching skills and experiential knowledge accordingly. Provide information upfront about the types of things people could get involved with. Reviewing these key points at regular intervals together will enable a continuous learning culture where the impact of co-production can be realised.