Skip to main content

Table 1 Space to Talk and Space to Change across different levels

From: More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production

  Space to talk Space to change
Design Methods - Workshops not meetings.
- focus on visual recording and sharing to provide a shared conceptual space for discussions.
- Prioritising experiential knowledge so that it is recognised as expert knowledge.
Survey feedback: “The mind maps on flip charts are good as I like the free-thinking/mapping side of idea generation. There needs to be more visual, illustration in research and academia. It can be very dry and formal when it doesn’t need to be”
- Iterative and reactive
- Use of prompts and templates to invite critique and reflect changes made.
- Collective ‘real time’ synthesis.
Evaluation notes: “the example of writing on the board and seeing how your words were being listened to, built on and “having an impact” felt good and reinforced their involvement … As they had done it as a big group everyone’s ideas were together”
Relationship between contributors and researcher Recognising and explicitly inviting public participants as equal experts
Constructive tensions and disagreements deliberately explored
Evaluation notes: “The group attributed the good group bonding to [researcher] creating an open and transparent space in which they were all respected and as a result respected each other.”
Contributor email: “I think it’s really important to emphasise that there were disagreements which weren’t always resolved, but that we did try very hard to come to a consensus and generally succeeded … the diversity of opinions was a crucial part of the discussions.”
Contributor email: “we shouldn’t underplay the disagreements … The creative tensions were what made our work distinctive and, in my opinion, more valuable”
Willingness to adapt the study aims in response to the contributors. Willingness of all to change minds in response to others.
Sharing responsibility to collaboratively generate new solutions as well as critique existing models.
Evaluation notes: “Facilitator has to be a ‘risk taker’ and be open to ideas that are not anticipated or expected – too often researchers want to know the outcome from the start; [researcher] had to have ‘trust’ in outcomes from workshops that are not pre-planned; becomes about trust and not about power”
Workshop Six observations: “Consensus that people have been open minded enough to change their views – there has been a flexibility and adaptability to new ideas.”
Institutional processes Providing cash reimbursement enabled attendance for some contributors and reinforced the fact that their input was genuinely valued.
Contributor email: “Some people literally could not afford the travel and opportunity costs of attending a meeting. Then there are the social/psychological dimensions of feeling that your contribution is not valued or taken seriously”
Changed reimbursement in response to feedback – demonstrated willing to change way of working to respond to needs
Survey feedback: “It has been really good to see [researcher] actively consulted the group about payment and has listened to our frustrations”