In this blog, Rosalind Phillips, a research apprentice at the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP), compares the research practices of the WCPP with our evidence summaries team.
Background to the blog
As part of my work at WCPP, I had the opportunity to complete a placement with Social Care Wales, and more specifically, with their Research, Data, and Innovation team, which produces content for the Insight Collective. During the placement I worked with the evidence summaries team to learn more about the work they do and their use of evidence. This has led me to consider the similarities and differences between their practice and that of WCPP.
The purpose of both teams
At WCPP, we provide Welsh Government and Welsh public services with evidence to improve policy decisions and outcomes. We undertake projects for the Welsh Government and for Welsh public services that fit with our priority areas. Our topic scope is broad, responding to the evidence needs of policy in Wales.
In contrast, for the evidence summaries team the primary audience is social care practitioners in Wales. Their main ambition is to make a positive difference to social care. The evidence summaries team specifically respond to the evidence needs of the social care workforce to support and improve their practice. The purpose and audience of each organisation plays a key part in determining their process and how they understand and use evidence.
The process of using evidence
Whilst both teams take a pragmatic approach to their process of collecting and using evidence, differences in team size and subject expertise influence the overall process. WCPP is led by evidence quality and has a well-established and formalised approach to evidence use for Welsh Government and Welsh public services with every project completing five key phases.
In contrast, the Social Care Wales evidence summaries team adopts a more flexible process, led by theory and practice. It’s guided by colleagues with expertise in social care and relevant social theory. Perhaps the evidence summaries team’s practice is also able to be more flexible as it is a small team – three researchers compared to WCPP’s 19 – with academic and practical expertise specifically in research and social care. In comparison, the expertise and experience of the WCPP team is less specific and covers various relevant topics.
The definition of evidence
At both WCPP and within the Social Care Wales evidence summaries team, there are regular conversations about what counts as evidence. We are pragmatic in our definition of evidence, recognising that randomised control trials (for example) are not always available, but also may not provide the best and most necessary evidence to meet all policy needs.
I was interested to understand the parameters the team in Social Care Wales had set for evidence and how they make the necessary, but often complex, decisions about what evidence is appropriate to use in their summaries. Whilst they were definitive in stating that producing traditional systematic reviews would not serve their purpose, team members told me that they were intentionally flexible with their definition of evidence. This is related to their purpose of creating nuanced and accessible summaries for social care workers. It also stems from being able to draw on their internal expertise to assess the suitability of different forms of evidence for each topic (based on their priority setting work, as well as the priorities set by ADSS Cymru).
The main focus of the evidence summaries team is research that provides evidence to support social care staff to deliver the highest quality person-centred care for people in Wales (based on Social Care Wales’ values). Whilst the team mostly draws on peer reviewed and published research, the evidence available does not always meet their needs and so they have to be flexible about what evidence they decide to include.
Additionally, with some topics, they argued it was necessary to intentionally look for other forms of evidence, for example when drawing on the lived experience of those who use care and support services, or those with professional or personal caring responsibilities.
Tackling inequalities
The Social Care Wales team spoke to the importance of recognising that the funding and production of research is not always equal or fair and so it is necessary to include insights from those within society who may be excluded from producing traditionally academically rigorous research. At WCPP, we are hosting a research fellow to explore and enhance the role of experts by experience in our work, and to understand the challenges and risks – including methodological – of involving lived experience experts in policy research.
The evidence summaries team at Social Care Wales also described the value of lived experience and the need to balance lived experience expertise with traditional evidence standards and methodological rigour. When drawing on less traditional forms of evidence, the team includes information about the source (and its potential limitations) within their summaries.
My closing thoughts
It was a great opportunity to be able to complete a placement with Social Care Wales. I was able to experience differences in evidence use related to the purpose, process and use of evidence of both teams, and consider the valuable learnings from both sides.
