Taking stock of co-production and partnership with people with lived experience in social work knowledge production and publishing

In this Editorial, we wanted to reflect on and retrace our steps as a collective that has strived to embed and promote the voice and influence of people with lived experience of social work within the work of the British Journal of Social Work (BJSW) over the past three to five years. In doing so, we build on previous Editorials we wrote on this topic (Maglajlic and Ioakimidis 2022; Beresford et al. 2023; Maglajlic et al. 2023; Ali et al. 2024; Hughes et al. 2024). In a full meta moment, it felt important to return to a definition of what an academic journal is—what is the practice, process, and artefact we are trying to re-shape and make more inclusive? Unlike other familiar practices and concepts in knowledge production and dissemination, a definition of a journal seems to be residing predominantly in ‘grey spaces’ of information and knowledge sharing, such as the university library sites or a Wikipedia page for ‘Academic Journal’. This suggests that an academic journal is a periodic publication that publishes research and scholarship within a specific academic discipline or its specialism. Some relevant information is, of necessity, descriptive, as it concerns processes and resources devoted to enabling this work. The aim to promote the voice and influence of lived experience was embedded in Reima and Vasilios’ tenure as Editors from the start (July 2020). This was both approved and supported by the Journal’s owners, the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), and the Journal’s publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP). Hence, much of the work that followed felt like pushing on an open door—not a common experience for many devoted to enabling spaces, processes, and creating other resources to promote the experiential knowledge of social work. An Editorial Board sub-group on the same topic was initiated in February 2021 (members were Ruth Allen, Luke Geoghegan, Mel Hughes, Peter Unwin, Mark Wilberforce, and Reima Ana Maglajlic). Group members agreed to first approach as many organizations run by people who use health and social care services and their carers as possible and survey their interest in becoming involved in the management of the Journal and/or all associated processes (e.g. becoming a peer reviewer and/or publishing experiential knowledge within the Journal). This was followed up with consultations that Reima held with key individuals who had expressed their interest in the survey to become active in the Journal. This included consultation with the subsequent Editorial Board member Ellen Thomas and the wonderful, and greatly missed, late Michael Shamash. In July 2021, the BJSW Editorial Board reviewed the information gathered through the survey and the consultation, and approved two sub-group proposals: to initiate a special issue on the voice and influence of lived experience (Issue 53(3); see Beresford et al. 2023, and Hughes et al. 2024), and to start the recruitment of Editorial Board members with lived experience. To support this, BASW Council approved a budget that would allow remuneration for future members with lived experience (£80 for four hours, £160 for eight hours). This was followed by an advert for new Board members, which was published and ran from early May to late June 2022, during which time the Editorial Office received twenty-five applications. During the selection process, the sub-group agreed upon and considered three criteria. First, we wanted to ensure a diversity of experiences of health and social care. Secondly, we wanted to ensure a diversity of candidates’ identities. Finally, we wanted to recruit members who have previous experience of engagement with health and social care practice, research, writing/publishing, and/or social work education. Based on these criteria, in July 2022, the sub-group proposed to the wider Editorial Board to accept eleven new members with lived experience of health and social care. This ensured that nearly half of the Editorial Board comprises members with lived experience. When reflecting on this in preparation for the Editorial, Ellen stressed how important this is—and how rare. How did it come about? Ensuring that half of the Board have lived experience felt important for two key reasons. Prior experiences of the academic members of the sub-group (e.g. Hamlet Trust 2007 for Reima) had taught us the importance of ensuring that at least a third of the membership of decision-making bodies includes representatives with lived experience. We also knew that, despite everyone’s best intentions, some of the newly recruited Editorial Board members wouldn’t be able to commit to the work of the Journal. Life gets in the way, or it becomes too difficult for a range of different reasons. Two new Editorial Board members never attended any of the Board meetings and didn’t engage with any follow-up communication. Another few had too many other commitments and withdrew or suspended their involvement. Most recently, our wonderful Avril McIvor decided to retire. These examples also reflect the engagement of academic staff who are Editorial Board members. Three years on, five of the eleven Editorial Board members with lived experience remain involved in the work of the Journal—approximately a third of the overall Editorial Board membership. We will continue to explore how to maintain and refresh this membership and the opportunities available. To facilitate our work, it was important for us to build supportive and lasting relationships with each other. That enabled us to learn from each other and be open and honest as to how we are, and how we come to each task and each meeting. The duration of Board meeting was extended from two to three hours to allow everyone to contribute as much as possible, and a (slightly) slower pace for the meetings. All paperwork is sent out to the whole Board at least one month in advance. We organize a pre-Board meeting to discuss the upcoming agenda and paperwork—to catch up, ask questions, reflect on what informs our decisions, and any issues that arise between the meetings [e.g. when selecting the Editor’s Choice papers and considering how best to approach and apply the criteria for the Kay McDougall Prize for the best Editor’s Choice paper in each Journal Volume, see https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/pages/basw_kay_mcdougall_bjsw_prize)]. Members also needed help to prepare and submit the paperwork to claim remuneration or to cover the expenses for face-to-face meetings, which can only be reimbursed rather than paid in advance. Sharing and navigating these complex (and at times painful) issues takes trust and time. Ultimately, the changes that were initiated benefit everyone involved in the work of the Journal. Not all academics know or have privy of access to the inner workings of academic journals. Being open and transparent benefits our whole social work community. In reflecting on all of this, we agreed how important it is to be open to change the power dynamics in a process (academic publishing) that is frequently out of sight from the community it serves. Beyond these two actions (Special Issue and recruitment of Board members), there is a persistent, simmering, ambition to have a section of the Journal dedicated solely to the experiential knowledge of social work. However, this requires further action and preparation to ensure the journal was inclusive and welcoming. Throughout 2024, we started revising all information on the BJSW website—from information about the Journal to the instructions we provide to our authors. While we had to comply with the standard OUP webpage layout for their Journals, we have tried to make all of the BJSW webpage content as accessible as possible. We would appreciate your feedback on how successful we have been in this endeavour, and if you, as our readers and submitting authors, think further changes are needed. Next on the list are the emails sent to the authors. The preparation of the Special Issue signposted the many problems authors may have when navigating the formal submission process (via the ScholarOne platform), including the complex hoops of accepting a publishing license, approving the proofs for the article, and all the other ticks, boxes, and processes involved in the publishing process for the Journal. For this and all other support, we are both grateful and indebted to Penny Brown, the beating heart and soul of the BJSW Editorial Office. Penny is the gold standard of Editorial Office support for any Journal, and we don’t know where we would be without her. As part of our reflection, we also wondered what the impact of our actions was—if any—on other Journals in social work and other allied professions. We were partly inspired by the previous work of individual BJSW Editorial Board members and Editors (Mel, Reima, as well as Ruth Allen, Peter Unwin, and Mark Wilberforce), as by external initiatives such as the BMJ Patient and Public Partnership (https://www.bmj.com/campaign/patient-partnership), thanks to Ellen Thomas, who is also involved in their work. There is also the existing work within the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, which includes a Consumer and Practitioner Narratives section (Baker 2015). It is also relevant to note that, thanks to the International Advisory Board member Jasna Russo, revisions to our webpages were greatly informed by the International Journal of Disability and Social Justice (https://www.scienceopen.com/collection/ff03d91c-c7ed-4105-b504-f1a13596b9bc). Professor Robin Miller, Guest Editor of the forthcoming Special Issue on Leadership and Social Work and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Integrated Care (IJIC), also informed us that we have inspired IJIC to recruit Lived Experience Editors, which was wonderful news for all of us (https://ijic.org/about/editorialteam). What is the future proofing for this work? At its core, it seems to include people, relationships, time, patience, and open, transparent, patient, and supportive processes. Future support from BASW, as the Journal’s owner, is important, too, both in terms of broader support from our social work community and for remuneration for the involvement of experts by experience. We feel fortunate that this work is now in the superb hands of the incoming Editors, Professor Carlene Firmin and Dr Sui Ting Kong. Part of their recruitment was to ensure their commitment to support this work going forward. We also hope that this and other Editorials offer some institutional memory as to where it all began and what it took to get this far over the past three to five years. It feels both too little and a lot. As our prime task is to publish social work knowledge and scholarship, this work also rests on more resources being committed to supporting research and practice that is led by people with lived experience of health and social care. National Institute of Health and Social Care Research (with social care remains the silent partner in their renown abbreviation) has recently embedded a requirement for all grants submitted to their funding Programmes, including their Research Programme for Social Care (https://www.nihr.ac.uk/research-funding/funding-programmes/research-programme-for-social-care) to include evidence of professional researchers working with people and communities, as well as evidence of research inclusion (inclusive design) (https://www.nihr.ac.uk/research-funding/application-support/guidance/domestic-programmes-outline-application-guidance). We hope that this is a step in the direction of opening a quota for research specifically led, not just co-produced, by people with lived experience. Without foundations in social work knowledge production, creating inclusive designs in social work publishing will have only limited societal impact—no matter how important it is.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.