Starting the Conversation: Why Co-Production Needs a Closer Look

As I begin writing more about co-production, I have realised that while I often dive into passionate reflections, some readers may not be familiar with the basics. So, over the next few posts, I will be exploring what co-production means to me, and sharing the challenges and insights I have encountered throughout my research journey.

My journey into co-production, user involvement, and insider research has not been a straight line. It’s been a rich, evolving process shaped by real people, lived experience, and a deep belief in the value of experiential knowledge. Today, as I continue my PhD, I find myself returning to a pressing question: Where are we actually going with all this talk of diversity, equality, and inclusion? Are we really making a difference, or just saying the right things? 

In professional and academic spaces, there’s growing pressure to “do diversity” and involve the public, especially through initiatives like Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). Yet at the same time, questions are being raised about who fills the diversity roles within public services, and whether those efforts truly reflect the communities they aim to represent. 

Part of me thinks: rightly so. Services should be held accountable for the systems they design and the outcomes they produce. But my concern is deeper. Are the current models of involvement and representation really meeting the needs of the communities we claim to serve? Or are we just checking boxes? 

A Systemic Disconnect
 
We also need to talk about the professionals working within these systems. Are they being supported to engage meaningfully with diversity and inclusion, not as a bolt-on or a policy obligation, but as a core part of their clinical or service-delivery mindset?
 
This disconnect became clear to me during a conversation with military veterans. Some shared that they wished there were more veterans involved as professionals, people who truly understand their experiences. But I’ve also met professionals who are veterans themselves, who bristle at the idea of involving the wider veteran community in service design. One of them told me, candidly, that they had a negative experience being “told what to do” by service users, even if it is from their own community.
 
It struck me that even those with lived experience can feel excluded, especially when their professional identity is overlooked. In that moment, I realised: Co-production that side-lines professionals with lived experience is still a form of exclusion.

 Co-Production Is Not a Policy. It’s a Practice.

This work isn’t just about representation. It’s not about compliance or ticking boxes. It’s about transformation. And transformation requires us to do co-production well.

When it’s genuine, co-production empowers everyone involved in the dynamic, both professionals and service users. It becomes more than just inclusive; it becomes effective. Everyone wins. But we can’t just talk about co-production. We have to ask: What does good co-production actually look like? And how do we make sure it’s not just a label?
 
Here’s what I’ve learned so far:
 

These are the questions I continue to explore through my PhD, the projects I contribute to, and the posts I write. I do not have all the answers, and maybe that’s the point. Co-production isn’t a box to be ticked or a final product to be delivered. It’s an ongoing process that demands we show up with humility, curiosity, and a willingness to evolve.
 
If we get this right, co-production isn’t just a method, it is a mindset and a means of genuine empowerment
 

#coproduction #engagement #phd