{"id":4260,"date":"2021-02-27T04:44:13","date_gmt":"2021-02-27T03:44:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sola.kau.se\/cosie\/?page_id=4260"},"modified":"2021-09-08T08:59:24","modified_gmt":"2021-09-08T07:59:24","slug":"co-creation-as-a-moral-endeavour","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sola.kau.se\/cosie\/project-level-findings\/co-creation-as-a-moral-endeavour\/","title":{"rendered":"Co-creation implies new skills in re-humanising services"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Co-creation implies new skills in re-humanising services<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Co-creation as a practice in welfare services is guided by specific moral aims, such as individual\u2019s well-being, care, independence or empowerment. These are moral goals and co-creation becomes a moral-led practice. For such services to gain value it requires redefining the established relationships between service users and professionals. More specifically in means being aware of individuals\u2019 who are supported by the service rights, power dependencies and recognizing their unique lived experiences. Further, it implies a commitment to and trust in sharing of power and control over services with these individuals. It is all about rehumanizing services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The contribution of professionals<\/strong> thus is very important for establishing rehumanized relationships with individuals supported by a service. Yet, it has been undermined in much thinking about co-creation (see for example in Osborne and Strokosch 2013; Hannon, 2019). Service professionals will need to develop new types of skills to successfully engage in co-creation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please reflect in relation to your context<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are the kind of skills service staff need to develop to ensure a more pro-active and open minded attitude toward the contribution of the beneficiaries in making decisions about their services<\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Taking co-creation seriously often involves developing following skills: asset-based approach, rethinking risks and de-learning.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1: An asset-based approach.  <\/strong> Strengths or asset-based approaches normally involve ways of working or relating to an individual supported by a service that differ from \u2018business as usual\u2019  where the focus is on managing needs and fixing people\u2019s problems (Wilson et al, 2017; Cottam, 2018). Strengths or asset-based approaches focus upon people\u2019s goals and resources rather than their problems (Price et al. 2020). These include both their current intangible resources (perhaps skills, experience or networks) and their potential to develop new community and personal assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Co-created public services are premised on people exercising agency to define their goals in order to meet needs they themselves judge to be important. CoSIE experiences evidence that co-creation is informed by versions of \u2018deep personalisation\u2019 (Leadbetter 2004) inspired by social  activism among stakeholders who are driven by social justice for people who are marginalised and lack power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PILOT EXPERIENCES: Strengths-based working is always possible in the delivery of public services but it takes time and resources. CoSIE pilots demonstrate that it is possible to legitimate the knowledge of people who receive public services, and nurture their participation in service innovation and decision-making. This has proved to be so even in contexts that look highly unpromising, for example in services where people are compelled to receive the service (work activation, criminal justice as in Hungary, UK) and in places where there are longstanding traditions of patriarchal attitudes and top-down provision (Hungary, Poland). Engaging people unused to having their voices heard demanded hard work, sensitivity to their needs, and sometimes extra resources. All the pilots achieved this to some extent. Outstanding examples were in the Estonian, Finnish, Polish and Dutch pilots.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

2: From risks to needs.<\/strong><\/strong>\u00a0Seeing a person as a whole<\/em>\u00a0with a complexity of needs rather than as a collection of predefined problems to be addressed is especially important skill in rethinking risks.<\/em> Yet it is surprisingly hard to do, given the tendency of many services to work in silos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PILOT EXPERIENCE: A municipal employee who took a lead in the Dutch (Houten) pilot observed that, \u201cdespite all my good intentions, I discovered that in the end I was fulfilling our agenda not the agenda of the citizens. In fact, I did not even know what their agenda was! I missed the broader perspective and the person as a whole\u201d.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Professionals who work in public services often struggle to develop meaningful relationships with people who use services, constrained as they are by rigid thinking about \u2018risks\u2019 associated with certain individuals and \u2018safeguarding\u2019 established solutions and being restrictive with \u2018resource allocation\u2019. This stands for a deficit-based approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moving from \u2018deficit-based\u2019 approaches to \u2018strengths-based\u2019 ones require front-line staff and their organisations to fundamentally re-think their concepts of risk, from the way they assess it, to the language they use to describe it, to the ways they respond to it. This doesn\u2019t mean ignoring risk, but it almost certainly means addressing people\u2019s underlying needs <\/strong>rather than just the \u2018risk\u2019 that they are presented with. It also means drawing on people\u2019s wider assets that reside in their relationships with their families, friends and communities when responding to \u2018risk\u2019 (needs).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here it is important to remember that needs may be seen differently<\/strong> by targeted service beneficiaries and the professionals. Sometimes professionals need to shift their perspectives to accommodate the one\u2019s of the service beneficiary and sometimes it means that both sides can arrive at a shared perspective. This is illustrated in the animation below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n