“Seeing” the Difference: The Importance of Visibility and Action as a Mark of “Authenticity” in Co-production; Comment on “Collaboration and Co-production of Knowledge in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 NIHR Collaboration and Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Yorkshire and Humber (CLAHRC YH), Sheffield, UK

2 Lab4Living, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

3 Translating Knowledge Into Action, NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber, Sheffield, UK

4 Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, Doncaster, UK

Abstract

The Rycroft-Malone paper states that co-production relies on ‘authentic’ collaboration as a context for action. Our commentary supports and extends this assertion. We suggest that ‘authentic’ co-production involves processes where participants can ‘see’ the difference that they have made within the project and beyond. We provide examples including: the use of design in health projects which seek to address power issues and make contributions visible through iteration and prototyping; and the development of ‘actionable outputs’ from research that are the physical embodiment of coproduction. Finally, we highlight the elements of the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) architecture that enables the inclusion of such collaborative techniques that demonstrate visible co-production. We reinforce the notion that maintaining collaboration requires time, flexible resources, blurring of knowledge produceruser boundaries, and leaders who promote epistemological tolerance and methodological exploration.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Rycroft-Malone J, Burton CR, Bucknall T, Graham ID, Hutchinson AM, Stacey D. Collaboration and co-production of knowledge in healthcare: opportunities and challenges. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(4):221. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.08
  2. Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, Soper B. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009415. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009415
  3. Cooke J, Ariss S, Smith C, et al. On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:25. doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0014-y
  4. Boyle D, Slay J, Stephens L. Public services inside out. Putting co-production into practice. London: NESTA; 2010
  5. McCabe K, Wallace A, Crosland A. A model for collaborative working to facilitate knowledge mobilisation in public health. Evid Policy. 2015;11(4):559-576. doi:10.1332/174426415x14298767491657
  6. Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J et al. Research with patient and public involvement: a realist evaluation – the RAPPORT study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2016;3:38.
  7. Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(8):626-632. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839
  8. Robinson K. Out of our Minds. Capstone Publishing; 2011.
  9. Tsoukas H, Vladimirou E. What is Organisational Knowledge?  J Manage Stud. 2001:38(7):972-993. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00268
  10. Cross N. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer-Verlag;2006.
  11. Gregory S A. The Design Method. London: Butterworth; 1966.
  12. March LJ. The logic of design and the question of value. The Architecture of Form. UK: Cambridge University Press; 1976.
  13. Simon HA. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1969.
  14. Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014;26(2):124-1288. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzu009
  15. Gauntlett D. Making is connecting; the social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2. London: Polity Press; 2011.
  16. Kontos PC, Poland BD. Mapping new theoretical and methodological terrain for knowledge translation: contributions from critical realism and the arts. Implement Sci. 2009;4:1. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-1
  17. Vink J, Wetter-Edman K, Edvardsson B, Tronvol B. Understanding the influence of the co-design process on well-being.  Paper presented at: Serv Des; May 24-26, 2016; Copenhagen.
  18. Jayes M, Palmer, R, Enderby P. Development of a mental capacity assessment support tool: a user-centred design process.  Int J Stroke. 2015;10(5):65.
  19. Gillard S, Simons L, Turner K, Lucock M, Edwards C. Patient and public involvement in the co-production of knowledge: reflection on the analysis of qualitative data in a mental health study. Qual Health Res. 2012;22:1126-1137. doi:10.1177/1049732312448541
  20. Fox NJ. Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology. 2011;45(1):70–85. doi:10.1177/0038038510387196
  21. Oswick C, Robertson M. Boundary objects reconsidered: from bridges and anchors to barricades and mazes. Journal of Change Management. 2009;9(2):179-193. doi:10.1080/14697010902879137
  22. Kislov R. Boundary discontinuity in a constellation of interconnected practices. Public Adm. 2014;92(2):307-323. doi:10.1111/padm.12065
  23. McGrath OC, Lingley-Pottie P, Johnson Emberly D, Thurston C, McLean C. Integrated Knowledge Translation in Mental Health: Family Help as an Example. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;18(1):30-37.
  24. Evans S, Scarbrough H. Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:119-127. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.025
  25. Tod A, Lusambili A, Homer C, Abbott J, Cooke J, McDaid K. Understanding factors influencing vulnerable older people keeping warm and well in winter: a qualitative study using social marketing techniques. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4). pii: e000922. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000922
  26. Best research for best health, implementation plan. NIHR; 2009.
  27. Martin GP, Ward V, Hendy J, et al: The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs. Evid  Policy. 2011;7:489-509. doi:10.1332/174426411x603470
  28. Walshe K, Davies HT. Health research, development and innovation in England from 1988 to 2013: from research production to knowledge mobilization. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3):1-12. doi:10.1177/1355819613502011
  29. D’Andreta D, Scarbrough H, Evans S. The enactment of knowledge translation: a study of the collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care initiative within the English National Health Service. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3 Suppl):40-52.
  30. Currie G, Lockett A, El Enany N. From what we know to what we do: lessons learned from the translational CLAHRC initiative in England. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(3 Suppl):27-39. doi:10.1177/1355819613500484

 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 August 2016
  • Revise Date: 04 October 2016
  • Accept Date: 04 October 2016
  • First Publish Date: 01 June 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics