Neutralized, enhanced, tokenistic: The influence of formal employment of service‐users on processes of co‐production
| Published date | 01 September 2023 |
| Author | Trishna Chauhan,Charlotte Croft,Dimitrios Spyridonidis |
| Date | 01 September 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12839 |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Neutralized, enhanced, tokenistic: The influence
of formal employment of service-users on
processes of co-production
Trishna Chauhan | Charlotte Croft | Dimitrios Spyridonidis
Warwick Business School, University of
Warwick, Coventry, UK
Correspondence
Trishna Chauhan, Warwick Business School,
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Email: phd17tu@mail.wbs.ac.uk
Funding information
NIHR CLAHRC West Midlands
Abstract
Can formally employing service-users in co-production roles
redress the problematic power imbalances inhibiting co-
production in the public sector? In this paper, we analyze
service-users formally employed in co-production roles.
Through semi-structured interviews, we illustrate how
actors use their voice, experience, and identity to respond
to different power imbalances. First, through the process of
“inverting professionalism”structural limitations resulted in
neutralized co-production. Second, through the process of
“embedding expertise”formally employed service-users
challenged collective expectations of their role and medi-
tated power imbalances, resulting in enhanced co-produc-
tion. Finally, through the process of “perpetuating rejection”
a new exacerbated power imbalance emerged when their
employment became a negative resource, resulting in
tokenistic co-production. We extend understandings of how
formally employing service-users has potential to redress
power imbalances. However, we caution against policy tak-
ing this for granted and argue that more consideration of
the influence of different forms of power is needed.
Received: 5 March 2021 Revised: 7 February 2022 Accepted: 18 February 2022
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12839
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
1014 Public Admin. 2023;101:1014–1032.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm
1|INTRODUCTION
Co-production, “an arrangement where both clients and ‘regular’producers contribute to a mix of activities at the point
of delivery of public services”(Fledderus et al., 2014, p. 427), ostensibly aims to challenge the dominance of profes-
sionals in public sector organizations by putting service-users at the heart of planning and delivery of services
(Bovaird, 2007; Osborne et al., 2012). Co-production processes rely on developing relationships between profes-
sionals and service-users to encourage equitable collaboration, regardless of status differences (Bovaird, 2007;
Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012; Brandsen & Honingh, 2016; Palumbo, 2016). However, co-production processes are char-
acterized by inherent power imbalances (Beresford, 2019; Williams et al., 2016), which continue to endure despite a
political agenda increasingly focused on the need to resolve such disparities (Bevir et al., 2019; Emerson et al., 2012).
As a result, the impact of co-production on public service design and delivery remains variable (Steen et al.,2018).
Problematically, the same political agenda advocating the need to challenge professional dominance may para-
doxically reinforce inequality in co-production processes. This is due to the complex interplay of democratic gover-
nance and professional expertise which are seldom balanced in co-production (Steen & Tuurnas, 2018) augmenting
unequal power positions bound by competing knowledge, expertise, and resources (Steen et al., 2018). As a result,
professionals continue to compete in processes of co-production, viewing themselves as experts (Thomas, 2013),
resisting co-production initiatives if they perceive them as a threat to their professional jurisdiction and control over
services (Owens & Cribb, 2012; Tritter, 2009), or protecting their jurisdiction by self-selecting acquiescent service-
users who will not challenge the status quo (Martin, 2008b).
In response to the challenge of professional dominance, an increasingly popular policy trend focuses on the
assumption that paying service-users as employees within organizations offers an opportunity to change power rela-
tions between service-users and professionals in processes of co-production (Bell & Pahl, 2018; Mayer &
McKenzie, 2017). Formally, employed service-users occupy a unique position by leveraging their lived experiences of
using services to become integrated within an organization and then co-produce that same service. As such, formally
employed service-users can occupy a brokering role (Siantz et al., 2018). They are theoretically able to translate dif-
fering professional and user perspectives, based on their own experiences, developing the collaborative relationships
necessary to mediate professional dominance in processes of co-production. However, the success of these initia-
tives is contested (Head, 2009). While some argue that formally employing service-users, and viewing them as equal
contributors rather than passive recipients, holds the potential to redress the inherent power imbalances characteriz-
ing public services (Park, 2020a; Rose et al., 2016), this view is not shared by all. Others question the positive influ-
ence of formal employment and note the continued undermining of formally employed service-users within
processes of co-production (Park, 2020b), counter-intuitively suggesting that formal employment can negatively
impact the equitable involvement of service-users in co-production (De Corte et al., 2018).
In short, the success of policy initiatives to mediate professional control over processes of co-production by for-
mally employing service-users is varied, but the reasons for this variation are not well understood. We suggest this is
because existing research is limited by how “power”is understood in co-production research. Power is often concep-
tualized as a resource allowing the most dominant to exert their influence over other, less dominant, actors (Clegg
et al., 2006). This prevailing perspective drives research considering how power is constructed and wielded over
others, but neglects explorations of the interpersonal relationships influencing how power is produced and
reproduced in co-production processes (Farr, 2018). Relatively little research has been conducted on the enduring
power imbalances in the co-production literature, despite important research on the democratic and technocratic
principles of representative and unrepresentative users (Bovaird, 2007; Halvorsen, 2003; Leach, 2006), which are
implicitly framed by issues of power.
As a result, extant research often positions co-production positively but fails to address the unequal power
dynamics that emerge in the decision-making process. Understanding how to ensure participation often receives
more attention than how to negotiate underlying power dynamics (Shybalkina, 2021), allowing tokenistic forms of
co-production to proliferate (Ocloo & Matthews, 2016). While some studies limit understandings of power to “one
CHAUHAN ET AL. 1015
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting