The unintended consequences of co-creation in public services—the role of professionals and of civil society organizations
Year: 2021
Type: article
Abstract: In this article, I underline two possible unintended \nconsequences of co-creation programmes. First, by focusing \nmainly, if not exclusively, on the users’ side, they \nunderestimate the role of professionals (front-line public \nworkers). Second, by emphasising the involvement and \nparticipation of individuals, they undervalue the \ncontribution of collective actors (civil society organizations \n—CSOs—such as users’ associations and representative \nbodies of peoples with special needs). The first weakness \noften undermines the sustainability of the co-creation \nstrategy in the medium and long term because it does not \nproduce an enduring systemic change in the public \nadministration’s attitude towards their citizens. The second \none can reinforce inequalities in access to public services, \ninstead of mitigating or overcoming them as intended by \nco-creation advocates. \nThe scholarly literature on co-creation typically and \nunderstandably stresses the role of users/clients in the \nprocess of service design and delivery (Pestoff, 2014; \nBrandsen et al., 2018). Numerous tools or mechanisms \npromote, increase and boost the contribution of the citizen \nas active co-producer (‘prosumer’) of public services, rather \nthan a passive recipient (Brandsen & Pestoff, 2006). \nThe role of professionals, however, can influence the \nsuccess or failure of co-creation but is largely underestimated \nor taken for granted, and this represents a major gap in the \nliterature (Osborne & Strokosch, 2013). Professionals often \ncarry out activities following a ‘business as usual’ logic and \nare sceptical towards any changes in their ways of work and \nprocedures. This is particularly noticeable in services with a \nhigh level of technical knowledge, such as health, education \nand some social services. Physicians, nurses, teachers and \nsocial workers operate following what has been defined as \nan ‘inward look’ and have difficulties in adopting a more \n‘outward look’ that would recognize the lay knowledge and \nresources of people in caring for themselves and the others \nin their lives (Boyle & Harris, 2009). \nIn order to fill this gap in understanding and \nimplementing co-creation, closer attention needs to be \npaid to the contribution of professionals in the realization \nof co-creation policy, as well as the new types of \ninteraction emerging among them (new professionals \n‘ties’). In particular, the structural elements that can boost \nor obstruct the active involvement of professionals in the \ndifferent phases of the co-creation process should be \nhighlighted. This will help to identify the new skills that \nprofessionals need to develop. Change the mindset of \nprofessionals is one of the main challenges any cocreation initiative has to deal with to be successful and \nsustainable. Co-creation, in short, implies a substantial \nredesign of the relationship between professionals and \nservice beneficiaries. \nCo-creation also implies a series of challenges for CSOs. \nGiven its stress on active, direct participation of citizens as \nend users, co-creation might underestimate the role and \ncontribution of CSOs in service implementation. In many \nEuropean countries there is a strong tradition of \ninvolvement and collaboration between CSOs and \ndifferent levels of government—local, regional, and \nnational. This collaboration is very visible in the planning, \ndelivering and monitoring of public service provision.
Source: Public Money & Management
Author: Andrea Bassi
Institution: University of Bologna
Language: English
Subfield: Public Administration
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W3207122085