Making it Real go to University

The University of Hertfordshire have been co-producing the design of the new Continuing Professional Development (CPD) degree modules, resulting in courses with citizenship in mind.

A highly skilled and responsive workforce needs the support of great on-going development opportunities. At the University of Hertfordshire, we are co-producing the design of our new post-qualifying degree, aiming to make it fit for the purposes of students, their employers and most importantly, the people they support. We think people on the receiving end of services know what makes a great worker and we want them to influence the way social and healthcare workers develop as professionals.

We have a history of collaboration at the university, but understand co-production to be something different. Co-production means people from different ends of services working together towards something that is valued and owned by all involved. Our group consists of academics and 'end users'; potential students, people they might support professionally and employers.

Membership is similar to previous university collaborations but the difference is in the sharing of ownership of this project and the responsibility each of us feels for its success. We want to establish equality in the way we work together. Each person involved in our group has equal say in the design process, the views of each member of the group carry equal weight and there is no assumption that the final word will go to any particular member. We see co-production as a chance to pool experiences and recognise that each has something important and useful to offer and we can all benefit from this.

The people around the table don't represent others but each brings their own insight and experience. Differences in views offer a diversity which create richness in discussions. The more different views presented, the richer the discussion.

Meetings last for 2.5 hours. People work at different paces and time is needed for everyone to feel confident to contribute and test ideas out loud. We feel confident that individual voices are heard. We have worked together as a group who have a common cause which is that we want excellent service professionals.

We have met as a group several times over nine months and have designed the learning outcomes and course content for degree modules. As facilitator, I have taken an informal but structured approach to meetings. I have made notes, set work plans and maintained focus. Where planned work has not happened within a meeting, it has happened outside; information collated, sent out to all members and then reviewed as a group at the next meeting.

We recognise the significant time commitment and the barriers to attendance for some group members and have attempted to make it as easy as possible to attend and contribute by contacting people between meetings and ensuring that thoughts can be collected in a number of ways including Skype and Facetime.

Physical access has been a problem even across public buildings that technically have access. For the most part, we have come in and out of buildings together as a group so have shared the experience of restricted paths, uncomfortably small lifts, toilets that don't work and circuitous out-door routes. For some, this has been an opportunity to witness the difficulties and indignities routinely faced by others and it is clear that it has not been equally easy for us all to get to meetings.

This has not impacted on commitment to the work. Having been on receiving end of services, one member feels so strongly about quality service provision that they have been determined to participate however difficult this has been. 'I want to be part of a group that will produce the kind of social workers that we need'.

So what have we learned?

Co-production takes time, money, planning and a shift in attitude from 'them and us' to 'we'. We think co-production demands facilitation skills that encourage trust and openness. It requires an open mind and recognition that there are different approaches to the same issues.

Does it make a difference?

The immediate difference is in accountability. We are connecting end users with academics and showing a commitment to offering courses aimed at developing workers to suit the needs of the people they will support.

It will be a task for the future to examine whether there is noticeable impact on the graduates of this new course but in the short term, we believe the emerging course themes of risk, respect, empathy and communication are a result of the co-productive design.

This is a new way of working for us and we have a lot to learn but we think a university is an ideal place to do this and are excited to see what can be achieved by working together co-productively.