Analysis of a university-NGO research partnership with and for children and young people in Covid-19

Abstract

To gain a deeper understanding of the ways institutions work in partnership in research in times of adversity, this paper analyses what happened when people from two very different organizations, a university and a children’s charity, worked together on the VOICES research project during Covid-19. VOICES looked at how nearly 2000 children and young people in North East England were experiencing the pandemic. It was ambitious in its range of research methods (drawings, writing, focus groups and comics). We set out to co-produce all aspects of the research across the two organizations, and to find ways to work in partnership with children and young people. Universities have not always been successful in researching with NGOs as equal partners. The cross-agency University-NGO team surmounted methodological difficulties in the unprecedented social upheaval of the pandemic to talk to almost 2000 children. This paper analyses team actions and practices that enabled effective partnership despite the uncertainties. Research questions considered: 1) What team actions helped the project to go well; 2) What were difficulties in how the research team worked together? Were they overcome and if so how? Data included meeting notes and research team interviews. Analysis found a number of elements that characterized the effective ways that the team worked together including: trust building, being listened to, transparency in decision-making and creating a space together. Difficulties included recruiting schools and youth organizations during Covid-19, research team staffing problems, and adapting research methods to Covid-19 restrictions the team. Using ideas from socio-cultural historical activity theory we explore the development of common knowledge and relational agency between team members and to analyze how relational expertise enabled problem solving and expansive learning so that we had agile responses to the challenges.

Introduction

Cross-agency collaboration in tackling societal challenges is on the rise, especially in these critical times when such partnership is most needed in the face of adversity. This paper is about the ways organizations work in collaboration on research in times of difficulty and hardship by looking at the practices the cross-agency VOICES research team used to work together during Covid-19. The VOICES project that is the concern of this paper brought together people from two organizations, Newcastle University and Children North East (CNE), to work together on research during Covid-19. Our aim was to understand how children and young people in North East England were experiencing the pandemic and use findings to influence policy makers. Cross-agency research is particularly important given the need for diverse knowledge and skills when addressing societal challenges (Lokot and Wake, 2021; Olivier et al., 2016). However, University-NGO partnerships can be problematic (Donnelly et al., 2021; Pohl et al., 2010; Voller et al., 2022). We draw on socio-cultural historical activity theory ideas from Edwards (2017) and Engeström (2014) to consider how researchers, from two very different organizations, worked effectively despite challenges during Covid-19.

Universities and NGOs tend to have very different research cultures and this can make it difficult to work together. The kinds of research that are valued can vary between these cultures. UK universities tend to value academic research that leads to journal outputs and demonstrable impact on society (Laing et al., 2018) with research performance indicators used for positions on national and global university league tables (Ball, 2012; Chubb and Watermeyer, 2016; Glenna et al., 2015; Shore, 2010). NGOs tend to favor more applied research such as evaluations of interventions. The importance of research varies depending on the purpose of the NGO, but most do not have research as a central aspect of their work. UK NGOs have serious funding challenges due to a decade of national government austerity measures. Cut-backs in statutory services has meant NGOs are increasingly relied upon for the delivery of frontline services and have diverse reporting requirements from multiple funders.

When universities involve NGOs in research the relationships tend to be unequal with university researchers taking most of the research decisions. Such research often has an “extractive” relationship with subjects with NGOs in a supporting role (Chagnon et al., 2022). An example of this is NGOs being relied upon on for help with gate keepers in order to enable university researchers to have access to communities and research subjects (Lokot and Wake, 2021; Voller et al., 2022). NGOs are often used by universities for specific research tasks rather than included as equal partners able to contribute fully and with their own skills in research. Co-production is seen as offering a way to address the inequalities in NGO/University research cultures in order to undertake research as equals (Lokot and Wake, 2021). This research partnership set out with the intention of the two organizations, the university and the NGO, co-producing all aspects of the research process. We also intended to look for opportunities throughout the project to work in partnership with children and young people.

We in the VOICES research team were surprised that we had been able to engage with so many children and young people from all areas of the North East region in England. We were pleased that we had been able to work in partnership with young people to take findings and policy recommendations to a range of stakeholders. We had learnt much in carrying out this work together and we were keen to learn from the experience. Not everything we did worked out well. Many of our achievements came from having tackled a number of challenges that arose as we carried out this work. We were interested in how the ways we worked together helped in what we managed to achieve and what we could learn from the challenges. It is this exploration that we discuss in this paper.

The VOICES project

The VOICES project took place between October 2020 and November 2022. It was funded by the UK ESRC (Economic and Social Science Research Council) rapid response fund during Covid-19. The project aimed to find out about children’s experiences of living though Covid-19, whatever those experiences may be. We used a range of methods that might appeal differently to children and young people so as to engage as many as possible in the research. Methods included focus group interviews, a task that invited drawings and writing, and workshops to design comics. The intention was to engage with young people in every local authority in the North East England, to predominantly work with children from areas that were economically disadvantaged, and to seek to engage with children with a diverse range of identities and backgrounds.

As the Covid-19 pandemic unfolded, it became clear that organizations catering for and working with children and young people were trying to adapt very quickly to different ways of delivering services (Bussières et al., 2021; Chambers et al., 2021). The work of the authors, whether in research or practice, placed a high premium on the importance of the views of children and young people in decisions that affect their lives including the development of services (Mazzoli Smith and Todd, 2019; Todd, 2012). Children and young people have a right to be heard and consulted about issues that concern them (James and Prout, 1990). However, we observed during Covid-19 that it was not easy for people working in children’s organizations to spend time listening to children and at the same time adapt their services. We saw a role for ourselves to provide opportunities for children and young people to be heard about how they were experiencing the pandemic.

We were not looking at any particular areas of children’s lives but wanted the VOICES project research methods to be adaptable enough to enable children to express their views and experiences on whatever themes were important to them during this time. We planned to analyze the main themes in what children were telling us. Our intention was to find ways to communicate these themes to policy makers and professionals in order to inform their policy and practice. We knew that achieving what we intended would not be easy given Covid-19. The disease was causing major health problems. The restrictions on social interaction in all settings was leading to uncertainties in going about everyday life that would impact on our intended research methods.

Ours was a new team brought together from two organizations so that the research would be carried out together during Covid-19. Todd (author) was overall project director working on all project tasks and she was team leader of the three university researchers including Tiplady (author). Bramhall (author) was team leader of the four main CNE researchers (Butler, Dalziel and Gathercole, authors, with other CNE researchers taking on more focused roles).

Carrying out a research project with a team from two organizations was in itself a big challenge. The research required many tasks of planning and execution. This included design of the methods, gaining access to young people, seeking consent, delivery of methods, and deciding which team members took the lead on the various tasks. This was potentially taxing given that many of the NGO team had not carried out research before, and that few members of the team had experience in carrying out research together. This meant we did not know what was each others’ levels of knowledge, skill and understanding about research. In ordinary circumstances this would be challenging enough. However, Covid-19 brought added challenges making team relationship building difficult since we were prevented from meeting face to face. There were also many additional personal stresses on team members from Covid-19.

Whilst the general methodological approaches (focus groups, research packs to encourage drawing and writing, and action cycles to impact on stakeholders) had been jointly agreed by researchers from each organization we still needed to work out in detail what these methods would look like in practice. For example, researchers shared ethical values about involving children and young people as far as possible as participants in research rather than subjects. However, we had to find ways to negotiate what this meant in practice. One aspect of this practice was how to conduct focus groups using a more participative approach rather than researcher defined questions repeated in a uniform process to each group. Another was the particular ethical issues that we would aim to adhere to and that we would write in our ethics approval applications. Not having worked together before in some ways made negotiations about practice more easy to do since the fact we were new to each other gave us a reason to talk about everything in detail that we would be doing. The challenge was how to do this in a way that gave those relatively new to research confidence that they had a valid voice when discussing methods with university researchers that had many years’ experience. Due to Covid-19 we did not have the benefit of building relationships face to face that can help a sense of shared values and trust. Instead of this, meeting times were weekly which is not the case in many projects. However, we needed frequent and regular opportunities to meet online to make sure we had enough time to develop all the various research actions and ethics together.

Each organization sought ethical approval using their own procedures but with shared and agreed items. Ethical approval was gained from the university’s research ethics committee, following the fourth edition of ethical guidelines for educational researchers from the British Educational Research Association. Ethics approval was also gained through the health and safety procedures of CNE. Information letters were sent to head teachers and children’s carers, and the research team was available to answer questions. The consent of school or youth group leaders, parents and children were sought for children’s involvement. Participants were informed they could exit focus and comic groups at any time. Inclusion of children with diverse backgrounds was an important value for the project. Finding opportunities for children and young people to have more of a participatory role in the research was also a value. This also meant supporting young people to be included in decision-making about which stakeholders to meet with, and the agenda and delivery of such meetings. Robust procedures were in place with respect to child safety and all groups had a teacher, teaching assistant or youth worker present.

Focus group discussions were carried out by the NGO team members. Protocols and reporting formats took much discussion amongst the team to agree. Focus groups took the form of semi-structured conversations, centred around a number of open questions led, as far as possible, by the children and young people. CNE researchers took a lead in the design of such questions which were open so as to enable any topic of conversation. Children chose to talk, write and draw about a wide range of topics. This included schooling, family, friends, activities, using digital devices, physical and mental health, transport and politics. Approximately a third of the focus groups took place online and two thirds in person.

Multiple copies of a short research pack were sent to schools and youth organizations for children and young people, inviting them to undertake a drawing and writing task should they choose to take part. The packs included three prompts with space for the child to draw or write about something (a) they had found good about life recently, (b) they had found difficult about life recently, or (c) was important to them now. Ideas about how to obtain a high return rate of the packs necessitated extended team discussions across the whole team.

By the end of July 2022 when fieldwork ended the team had engaged with almost 2000 children and young people (mostly from minoritized backgrounds) aged 5–18 in focus groups, through drawing, comics and writing. We received 2231 drawings and pieces of writing from 745 children from 15 organizations. Most children responded to each of our three prompts. We carried out online and face-to-face focus groups with 1177 children and young people from 71 organizations. As findings emerged, we worked with young people to meet stakeholders in order to seek changes in practice and policy. We worked with more than 30 young people and stakeholders on the key themes from the research: employment, transport, health and digital activities.

Research partnerships during Covid-19

We were far from alone in setting out to use research during Covid-19 with the intention of contributing positively to the needs of both children and the services they use. Much research during the pandemic looked into a range of issues such as children’s education and social care (Beresford et al., 2021; Bussières et al., 2021; Cachón-Zagalaz et al., 2020; Crean et al., 2024; Larivière-Bastien et al., 2022). There were also researchers that embarked on projects before the pandemic took hold that then had to try to adjust their methods. In response to carrying out research during Covid-19 there has been much published analysis of the ways that methods were adapted during the pandemic, the most common being discussions of taking research methods online (Crean et al., 2024; Donnelly et al., 2021; Hall et al., 2021; Keen et al., 2022; Newman et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2021). Online delivery was one of the main changes we made to our usual delivery of focus groups.

Crean et al. (2024) discusses the need to do more work on the “science of teams” (p6), noting that “Working collaboratively during a pandemic is a task and challenge in and of itself, as well as being fundamental to the success in shifting from in-person to remote research” (p9). Crean et al. (op cit.) was a team of university researchers rather than a cross-agency team. We therefore cannot learn from their analysis about how teams from different agencies and types of organizations worked together on research.

Our intention to use co-production to characterize many aspects of our approach was in common with many other projects (Beresford et al., 2021; Donnelly et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021) during the pandemic. The more equal research partnerships that co-production aims to bring about are critical when carrying out research in times of societal or environmental tragedy or conflict. In such times it is important to bring different knowledges, capabilities, skills, resources and practices together to address how to research challenging situations. However, few studies offer analysis of the issues that are the focus of this paper, that is an interest in how the research teams managed this co-production, how they operated and how challenges were addressed. We agree with Lokot and Wake (2021) that much of the co-production literature is about service development, such as in health or education, rather than about how research is carried out (Beresford et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021).

A cultural-historical activity theory approach: Drawing on ideas from multi-agency working in children’s services

One area of research literature in which there has been much analysis of how cross- and multi-agency teams work together is that of the experience of people working in children’s services. Our previous research in this area had already demonstrated to us that this area afforded useful literature on cross-agency working (Todd, 2000; Todd, 2010; Todd, 2014).

The project learning ‘In and for interagency work’ which was carried out between 2004 and 2007 explored joined up responses from different professionals working with children and families identified as at risk of social exclusion (Edwards et al., 2009; Warmington et al., 2004). Their research studied professionals who might not be used to collaborating with workers from different services and might find themselves negotiating new professional practices with each other. The settings they considered were also ones in which client participation was of key importance. The objective of participation was different to the current study in that it was the delivery of services to families rather than carrying out research with children. Despite this difference, there is much that can be learnt from research literature on multi-agency working in children’s services that is of relevance to our analysis. The theoretical tools they used from cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) are used by us to look at cross-agency team working in this paper.

In CHAT the basic unit of analysis of human behavior is not seen to be within the individual. Rather it is at the level of an activity system, comprising not only a number of individuals and groups of people, but the cultural, historical and societal context within which human activity is played out. These ideas come from Vygotsky (1987), Leont’ev (1978) and Engeström (2014) (Leont’ev, 1978; Roth, 2014; Vygotsky, 1987). Such a view recognizes the socially and culturally constructed nature of individual behavior. In our analysis of the way our research team worked together we are not interested in individual actions in the team but in more collective actions, in what happened between people. CHAT therefore gave our investigation useful language, and ideas, through which to consider the workings of a cross-agency research team during Covid-19.

Enacting expertise is closely connected to what matters in professional actions including those carried out by researchers. ‘What matters’ in CHAT is referred to as the object of activity or object motive (Edwards, 2017) and is useful to our analysis of how we worked together as a team. In our project the object, the problem space, was to find out about how children were experiencing their lives during Covid-19 (looking at any aspect of life that children chose to talk about) in a manner that was as participative as possible given the circumstances. In other words, our problem space was to engage with children in the North East during and about Covid -19 with open questions through a range of tools (focus groups, drawings, writing and comics). We wanted to facilitate the young people to lead the conversation.

Whilst we considered everyone in our team to be researchers, we were from different organizations, a university and an NGO. The differences in our cultures, that we have referred to earlier, meant that there were differences in how research is managed, the kinds of funding available and the research training available. Historically university research is considered high status, but remote from society, with university staff privileged. Universities can be seen as hierarchical institutions with strict protocols for carrying out research. NGO staff can be seen as having more on the ground experience and community networks (Lewandowski and Czech, 2024; Uphoff, 1996). They can seen as able to operate with a flexibility that might be lacking in universities. The roles of the team members when we were not working together on this project differed considerably between the two organizations. The CNE researchers had roles in managing and delivering projects to do with children’s wellbeing. The university researchers had roles in other university research projects. Given such differences in roles, and what we have said previously in this paper about Universities not always being able to research with NGOs as equal partners, we were particularly interested in how we had managed to work so closely together on the VOICES project during Covid-19.

Edwards’ cultural-historical approach to multi-agency teams is useful for our analysis since it renders visible practice and capabilities of working across agencies (Edwards, 2010; Edwards, 2012; Edwards, 2017). Edwards noticed that the most successful interagency work occurred at sites of intersecting practice (Edwards, 2017: p7). She formulated concepts to explain successful interprofessional work. They were: relational expertise, common knowledge and relational agency. Relational expertise is the capacity to interpret problems with others and respond together. Common knowledge is knowing what matters for other practitioners one is working with (Edwards, 2012; Edwards, 2017). Relational agency is when people from different agencies calibrate their work together in ways that work with rather than against each other (Edwards, 2017). We return to these concepts once we have explored and analyzed data from the VOICES team collaboration.

Methods: How we investigated how the team worked together on the VOICES research

We set out to investigate the ways that members of the research team from two organizations worked together to achieve the project aims. The main research question was: what were team actions and practices that enabled effective partnership despite the uncertainties during Covid-19?

Two sub-questions to answer the main researcher question were:

• (1) What team actions helped the project to go well? How did the research team achieve the aims of this project given such adverse circumstances, with a focus on how the team worked together?

• (2) What were difficulties in how the research team worked together? Were they overcome and if so how?

It was only as the project was coming to an end and the main project report had been published that we, the researchers on VOICES, became more interested in reflecting on the ways we had worked together. At this stage we were delivering conference papers and found audiences interested in team working processes. We looked at what data we had already that could illuminate how we worked which led us to meeting notes. A consideration of whether it was possible to collect any additional data led us to the decision to carry out interviews within the research team itself to find out the views of individuals about team working. Therefore two sources of data were analyzed to generate the findings in this paper. One was process generated data (Baur, 2009) that related to the weekly team meetings during the whole period of the project. Another source of data was notes from four interviews between Todd, project director, and the four main CNE researchers about how the team worked together.

Weekly online meetings for an hour took place on a Friday morning for the whole research team from Oct 2020 until March 2022, for both those from Newcastle University and Children North East. A draft agenda was put together by one of the university researchers and all were asked for contributions. The meetings were about operational issues, research ethics, research processes and team well-being issues. The same university researcher produced detailed notes following every meeting. The notes were available to all in a Teams site. It is these notes that were analyzed for the purposes of considering how the team worked together.

There were many other meetings held by different team members. For example, two of the university researchers met weekly to agree priorities for overall project management. The two team leaders Todd and Bramhall met every three weeks to deal with any other coordination issues between Newcastle University and Children North East that were not dealt with at project team meetings or that needed a quick decision-making. Team leaders met their own teams regularly. And other combinations of the team met frequently to manage operational progress and sort out problems. However, notes were not kept of these meetings therefore they are not available for analysis and cannot contribute to this paper.

Researcher elicited data for the purpose of this analysis were interviews carried out by Todd with the CNE team leader Bramhall and with the three main CNE researchers Dalziel, Butler and Gathercole. Interviews asked about views of being part of the research, what they did in the research, the difficulties that arose and if/how they were addressed, and what in terms of team interactions contributed to or stood as a barrier to the effective conduct of the research. The interviews were carried out during 2024, a year and a half after the main VOICES data collection with children had ended. Interviews were carried out by telephone and took approximately one hour. The interviews were not recorded but notes were taken, including some verbatim phrases, during the interview and just following the interview. It was decided that insights from NGO team members in conversation with one of the university researchers were central to this paper given that the paper is an analysis of cross-agency team working. Therefore, and since there was limited capacity to conduct the interviews, university team members were not approached to be interviewed. If a choice had to be made it was considered more important to interview CNE team members.

There is potential conflict of interest having Todd, project director (and one of the paper authors), ask the questions of team members (also paper authors). There is the risk that interviewees would have a tendency to, or feel pressure to, give answers that show the research process in a positive light. However, there are some reasons to suggest confidence that CNE researchers were able to talk openly in the interviews. Firstly, the interviews contained both positive and negative examples of work together. Secondly, on several occasions project team members were given the opportunity to report on the research to an external audience and all had much to say about what the project had brought them personally. There was an interest in reporting the process of teamwork including what had gone well and not so well. Finally, the interviews with CNE team members took place a year and a half after the end of the project at a time when the possibility for a conflict of interests would in all likelihood be further reduced. None of those interviewed nor Todd were at the time of the interviews working together on a project. This period of a year and a half perhaps afforded those being interviewed the benefit of time to look back and reflect. Furthermore, it must be noted that the interviews were not the only data being analyzed for this paper.

The data, that comprised notes from weekly meetings and notes from interviews, was analyzed using an inductive approach to thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The process generated data from meeting notes and notes from interviews were analyzed for themes. First, all data was read several times to enable the data to speak. We recorded any themes that arose about how the team worked together. All notes were then read a further time with the two research sub-questions in mind. We were particularly interested in evidence from the data about what processes the team used to enable members to respond to the challenges of the research during Covid-19. We were interested in evidence from the data of who was making decisions about the research process, and of whether researchers from both CNE and the university teams were noted to have contributed to and to have taken decisions. In other words, we looked for indications of people taking responsibility for particular project decisions or actions. Any difficulties that were mentioned were noted along with whether and how they were resolved and who was involved in finding solutions. We scrutinized the interview data for indications of what was important to people, their expectations of their roles on the research project, examples of learning and what they thought worked well or not so well. Interview notes were analyzed for themes both using an inductive approach and applying themes from the analysis of meeting notes.

Findings

This partnership aimed to co-produce the research together across CNE and university teams, hoping in this was to build a more equal research partnership. Such an aim helped to guide the analysis looking for what went well and not so well in terms of developing a more equal footing. The themes that were found from meeting notes and interviews that relate to each of the two sub-research questions are now described. Some notes and interview responses are used to exemplify themes. Pseudonyms are used to preserve individual anonymity and help show the organisation to which the team member belongs. CNE researchers are referred to as CNE researcher 1, CNE researcher 2 etc. University researchers are referred to as Uni Researcher 2, Uni researcher 2 etc.

Themes in how the research team achieve the aims of this project given such adverse circumstances, with a focus on how the team worked together

Analysis of the data found a number of overlapping themes that enabled the team to work well together. These were: trust building, being listened to, transparency in decision-making and creating a space together. The overlapping principle for these was that they all contributed to shared decision-making and helped to create more equal collaborative working.

Trust building

One of the main themes that came through strongly in the data was that the way the project worked to engender trust and respect for all members of the team. This was partly to do with the values that were expressed and put into operation by team members:

Fundamental values created a sense of security and honesty (CNE researcher 1)

The managers (team leaders) held similar values and work approaches and created the space (CNE researcher 2)

The way that meetings were conducted was an important part of expressing and enacting respectful and collaborative values:

[It] kept us enthused, the project on track (CNE researcher 2)

Meetings also enabled personal conversations checking in during Covid-19 with how people were doing. This was in itself a central aspect of project values but also helped to develop an understanding of where everyone was coming from:

We were all going through a lot ourselves personally in the pandemic (CNE researcher 4)

Time together [was important] (CNE researcher 2)

Sharing the role of chair equally amongst team members was a way to share some aspects of leadership of the project and contributed to a sense that the contribution of all team members was valued.

Being listened to

On several occasions CNE researchers spoke of surprise that their ideas were listened to by the university researchers:

Didn’t expect to be listened to [but I was] (CNE researcher 3)

Before in my dealings with university academics I had not felt respected, people were dismissive (CNE researcher 4)

Meeting notes regularly received, named and valued the suggestions from all. A specific example was the take-up of CNE researcher 4’s idea to ask for a young person from one of the project colleges to design a certificate that would be given to all young people taking part in VOICES, and be given some token or payment for doing this. For her this was “living the values,” by giving back to young people, and recognizing the deprivation due to Covid-19 of any work experience.

Another example was CNE researchers 2 and 3 making suggestions for the focus group protocol that were adopted by the team as meeting notes demonstrate:

Meeting notes 12/2/21 Useful closing questions used by CNE researcher 3 and CNE researcher 2:

Q: Do you know who you’d talk to if you’re not feeling good? (This is a good question in signalling that talking to people is good, encouraged, not a burden, important for safeguarding)

Q: What’s been the best thing about this time? What are the highs and lows of this time? (Good summing-up question, aim to end on a positive note without being artificially chirpy).

[formal meeting record] (Notes recorded by Uni researcher 2)

12 March 2021 Fieldwork updates. CNE researcher 3 found it’s been better responses from young people when the questions have been more focused/ specific. They have found it hard to answer ‘what they’d like to see changed’. Better might be to ask them ‘what they could do to change or to make things better’, e.g. things themselves.

[formal meeting record] (Notes recorded by Uni researcher 2)

CNE researchers stated surprise at this positive response to their suggestions for the focus group protocol given traditional ideas about university researchers as experts.

We were surprised we didn’t get any pushback. Our new interview questions were accepted (CNE researcher 3)

Transparency in decision-making

At the Friday meeting main aspects of the project were discussed. Team members could add to an agenda that was prepared before the meeting and had access to the meeting notes that were written afterwards by Uni researcher 2. This meant that all researchers were involved in knowing about and taking decisions about different stages of the project even if they did not carry them all out. It was not the case that certain decisions were regarded as the domain of university researchers or of CNE researchers. Knowing the actions being planned was helpful for transparency and clarity which in turn supported the contribution of everyone. Everyone could see what had been discussed and what was coming up.

Evidence of more equal participation in research decision-making was found in the meeting data of suggestions made by the team of ideas for the project methods.

Creating a space together

Many of the team felt we were just one team working together:

We created a new team rather than us and them. It was just like being in the office when you come back and say how things went and problem solve any problems. (CNE researcher 1)

Although we were meeting online and most of the project was conducted from our homes, we managed to create a working space together:

We created the equivalent of the office environment (CNE researcher 1)

Ability to test and trial and always meet on Friday (CNE researcher 2)

Themes in the difficulties in how the research team worked together and ways they were tackled

Notes from meetings and interviews demonstrated the uncertainty researchers felt throughout the project about such areas as recruitment of schools and youth organizations, how to deliver focus groups online, how to collaborate with young people in conversations with stakeholders. The ways we developed our ideas about what to do was through our meeting discussions. The main themes identified in the data linked strongly with themes described previously, under the first sub-research question, those of trust building, views taken seriously and, able to disagree. Data analysis of meeting notes identified other themes that we exemplify in this next section of joint problem-solving and taking initiative. Such themes have a similar overlapping principle to those in how the team worked successfully together, since they all contributed to shared decision-making and helped to create more equal collaborative working.

Joint problem-solving

During Covid-19 there was tremendous pressure on many individuals and families and on almost all organizations that engaged with children especially schools. Rapid changes entailed schools having to make detailed arrangements in terms of which entrances children should use, staggered arrival and leaving times, whether and how parents and peripatetic professionals could come into school, how shared curriculum equipment was used, the operation of ‘bubbles’ for children in terms of who sat near each other, and many other considerations.

The repeated changes and complex arrangements because of Covid-19 regulations meant that many of the tentative agreements we had with schools and youth organizations to let us carry out a focus group disappeared. We repeatedly had to change our strategy to engage organisations. Notes evidenced joint problem-solving of many aspects of the project including recruitment:

11^th Dec 2020 CNE researcher 2 has been emailing/phoning schools, hard to find a way past generic email addresses to identify key contacts in schools CNE hasn’t worked with before. In contrast, 2 youth organisations in Middlesbrough have been very keen. Potential of recruitment via regional contacts (e.g. Youth Focus NE; Girl Guiding). All contact to go via CNE researcher 1, to make the most of existing CNE relationships and avoid duplication. CNE researcher 2 is already noticing that some contacts see this access to findings as an incentive to get involved in VOICES. [formal meeting record]

(Notes recorded by Uni researcher 2)

The expression of different views was encouraged and this aided problem-solving:

Innovation happened through listening, we were self critical too, if something was not working then people said. (CNE researcher 1)

It was ok to say something didn’t work (CNE researcher 3)

We were comfortable with each other sharing problems (CNE researcher 4)

There was freedom to disagree (CNE researcher 2)

Notes showed that other sub-meetings took place such as two CNE researchers 2 and 3, or Uni researchers 1 and 2, or CNE researcher 2 with Uni researchers 3 and 4. At such meetings joint problem solving took place on such aspects of the project delivery as numbers of children engaged with, access to schools and youth groups, how to engage with stakeholders, focus group questions, and a diversity analysis of the sample so far.

Taking initiative

When schools and other organizations agreed to take part in the focus groups, there was the added challenge for the research team of moving to an online delivery. Neither we nor the children and staff in the schools and youth groups we worked with had any previous experience of conducting online focus groups for research. Most online groups were conducted with the children and a teacher in the same room communicating with the researcher via one screen. On some occasions a range of other situations for online communication confronted one of the project researchers. For example, children might not have access to the microphone and communicated in the chat. When this happened, we did not have much warning and had to think quickly on our feet how best to facilitate a group through using the chat function. Evidence of an agile response and the ability to take initiative was found in the notes of meetings:

12 March 2021 Fieldwork updates. Issues in carrying out online consultation; sometimes unable access chat function/ pupils being able to hear and not respond to practitioner, instead writing in exercise books and then scanning pages to us/ Some sessions mix of verbal and chat responses/ With typing you lose some nuance from conversation but can get more detail in responses

Practical issues around capturing what CYP said. Can’t directly save Teams chat, one teacher provided screenshots of Teams chat but too small to read. Best approach so far has been for fieldwork researcher to stay on the Teams call to copy/paste chat text into a Word document and remove any CYP’s names

(Notes recorded by Uni researcher 2)

Interview responses and notes showed that the CNE researchers had confidence to take initiative:

In this team I was given trust and freedom, I felt I had autonomy to think on my feet in unusual situations like how to talk to children taking part in a football club (CNE researcher 4)

I was trusted to make changes, trusted that I had the skills (CNE researcher 3)

No one was breathing down my neck (CNE researcher 4)

Overall CNE researchers had confidence:

I know now I can manage any situation (CNE researcher 3)

(Voices) did so much for my confidence – got it back on track. (CNE researcher 3)

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to gain a deeper understanding of the ways organizations work in partnership in research in times of adversity by looking at the manner in which the cross-agency VOICES research team worked together during Covid-19. The main research question was: what were team actions and practices that enabled effective partnership despite the uncertainties during Covid-19? Two sub-questions considered firstly what went well and secondly what difficulties arose and how they were dealt with. We answer these questions drawing on Edward’s (2017) analysis of the characteristics of effective cross-agency working in children’s services, common knowledge, relational agency and relational expertise.

We were surprised by our achievements in the research given the uncertainties and challenges caused by Covid-19. However, the findings evidenced the ways in which we operated to enable effective cross-agency research. The way meetings were shaped and managed helped create the conditions for the development of a more equal and respectful understanding of what mattered to each team member. In other words, they created a common knowledge between us. This could then be used by us all as a resource to mediate our collaboration in achieving the project as a jointly constructed version of what we were doing as a team, rather than as two separate teams with different roles. The ways we operated enabled team members to have more equal roles in decision-making. Covid-19 required many organizations including universities to operate more flexibly which may well have contributed to the ability of the university researchers in this team to work together with the CNE researchers on a more equal footing.

A number of practices within all team meetings, including how they are conducted and recorded, gave individuals the opportunity to interpret problems with each other and respond together, and to operate together on a more equal footing. Trust was developed that included a culture of listening to each other, and transparency in decision-making. Therefore, there was evidence that our team practices had enabled us to build the relational expertise that research shows is central to effective cross-agency working (Edwards, 2017). We have evidence of relational expertise, of effective joint problem-solving, in notes about all aspects of the project including how to use the Teams site, the design of a form for what to record from focus groups, how we would analyze the data and write reports on what we were finding, managing online focus groups and the issues in gaining access to schools.

Within problem solving team members were routinely seeing how the other responded and working together in response. This was relational agency, another key aspect of effective cross-agency working (Edwards, 2017). Team members expressed a positive commitment to working together that had to do with what mattered to each other:

Accountability was built into relationships rather than a tick box or to the line managers (2)

There was a real accountability not to CNE researcher 1 and Uni researcher 1 but to the team, to each other, to talk to colleagues (3)

Not everything we did in the project went well. We were not able to address all our challenges through problem-solving. Some team members felt we tried to do too much and at too fast a pace. Working on VOICES for the researchers was not easy at the same time as coping personally with the impact of Covid-19. This was especially the case for those (four out of seven team members) that had their own children doing schooling from home. The employment conditions of university team members and CNE team members varied and this was never discussed. These were all examples in which we failed to listen to each other well enough to create common knowledge so there were differences in what mattered to team members that were not being addressed in the way the project operated.

Problems notwithstanding, there were many examples of changes in what people were working on that contributed to our team working well together. For example, team roles changed, members were agile in taking initiative to make changes in focus group approach, and the focus group protocol was altered as Covid-19 restrictions changed. This was evidence of expansive learning (Engeström and Sannino, 2017):

Expansive learning is. . .. the capacity to re-interpret and expand the definition of the object of activity. By rethinking their goals and activities and their relationships with other service providers and clients, professionals may begin to respond in enriched ways, thus producing new patterns of activity, which expand understanding and change practice (Warmington et al., 2004: 7)

In the VOICES project the object, the problem space at which activity was directed, was using participative methods to find about how Covid-19 was impacting on children. Meeting notes showed evidence of returning to aspects of this time and time again, as this was reinterpreted by team members together. For example, team members enjoyed learning, finding ways to engage with and give back to young people, evidence again of the expanse of the object:

I was aware how hard it was for young people to get experience for their CVs in the pandemic, especially from our work taking their views to employers, so I wanted to give one of them a chance to design our project certificate that we were giving to all children taking part (CNE researcher 4)

Each time issues were discussed and responded to, with each problem solved, the object of activity, what the team was working on, was collectively expanded. Researcher understanding of the object, the problem space all were working on, was about more than recording views but was enabling voice and participation of children and young people.

The values, and clarity in what we were trying to achieve robustly, ethically, effectively capturing voices (CNE researcher 1)

An example of expansive learning is an aspect of fieldwork, the comic workshops, in which the team struggled to work relationally. Comic workshops were designed by a Uni researcher 2 and arranged and facilitated by the CNE researcher with an artist. One of the CNE team members did not feel comfortable with the workshops:

I didn’t feel any ownership, couldn’t see the value of this. It was stepping out of my comfort zone (CNE researcher 2)

After a number of conversations, it became clear that the purpose and meaning of the comics workshops differed for Uni researcher 2 and CNE researcher 2. For the former, when working on the comic workshop the problem space continued to be about using participative approaches to engage with children about their views and experiences during Covid-19. For this person the use of comics was a creative participative opportunity. However, this was not the case for CNE researcher 2. For this person, the object of the comic activity appeared to be more about producing a good drawing than expressing views and experiences. CNE researcher 2 did not know what their role was in the activity. Despite discussions our team’s ability to problem-solve did not prevail. Instead, what helped the situation was that a non-school setting afforded the opportunity for an expansion of the object. CNE researcher 2 and a comic artist attended a youth group for older teenagers. The young people suggested creating the comic form of their experiences in Covid-19 using the media of Tiktok video that they shared amongst each other. For CNE researcher 2 the object had returned once again to be finding ways for young people to express their experience in Covid-19 using a participative activity.

There were many other examples of expansive learning in the ways the team worked together. Team members expressed that the project was so much more than simply finding out what children think. There was much evidence of new learning about young people’s capabilities and about ways of working with children:

I learnt how much very young children have to say on things we might not expect like politics. This has helped me tell people in my current projects that you can ask children their views for example about universal credit (CNE researcher 4)

And so much happened and came from it – it wasn’t just get the data and move on. We had the workshop from the Australian academic, the transport action, the Melbourne presentation. And it has expanded how I work and the creative approaches I use in research – such as the leaflets I did with the follow-on groups (CNE researcher 4)

Hopwood talks of the ‘flexible working inherent in responsive collaboration in which no single actor has the sole responsibility and control’ (Hopwood, 2017: 29). In common with working in children’s services VOICES project required ‘agile responses. . . rather than delivery of planned arrangements’ (Hopwood, 2017: 28). Knowledge across the research team is viewed “as a distributed resource, which is worked on and worked with in responding to complex problems” (Hopwood, 2017: 29). Researchers experienced the project itself as expanding of their experience: “innovative, dynamic” CNE researcher 4, and “opportunity to explore ideas was wonderful” (CNE researcher 3).

Conclusion

Given our earlier comparison of organizational and research cultures between the higher education sector and NGOs it is perhaps surprising that anything approaching equality in researching together is possible. However, our example has demonstrated the value in such cross-agency partnerships even in times of uncertainty and challenge. We have also shown the benefit in using ideas from research on interagency work in children’s services. What has been of particular merit has been the application of Edwards (2017) concepts of common knowledge, relational expertise and relational agency, and Engeström and Sannino’s (2017) ideas of expansive learning. These concepts helped in understanding what it was we had done during the project that had enabled the team to work well, especially given the challenges of the pandemic. They also, perhaps more importantly, helped us to understand what was happening when difficulties arose. We have illustrated what can be achieved when the ways in which a cross-agency research team works together is analyzed. It seems that the main practical conclusions are those that we seem to need to be remined of many times over. It is about having a set of values, meeting structures and decision-making processes that enable teams to operate on a more equal basis such that all researchers are included equally in the decision-making process about research actions, and that all contribute to a shared sense of common knowledge across the team. It is also simply to do with the importance in teams of time spent getting to know each other and developing ways to meet and work together with respect.