Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact

Document Type : Editorial

Authors

1 Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

2 University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

3 University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

4 Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Abstract

Knowledge translation and implementation science have made many advances in the last two decades. However, research is still not making expedient differences to practice, policy, and service delivery. It is time to evolve our approach to knowledge production and implementation. In this editorial we advance research coproduction as a neglected pathway to impact. Our starting point is that research impact is a function of how research is done and who is involved, arguing that researchers and non-researchers have an equal voice and role to play. We outline principles of coproduction including sharing power, valuing different sources of knowledge and viewpoints, equality, open communication, inclusivity, and mutuality. We consider implications at micro, meso, and macro system levels. In calling for this shift in the way knowledge is produced and applied, we anticipate it leading to inclusive research that more rapidly translates to better, more equitable health and care for all.

Highlights

Commentaries Published on this Paper

 

  • Research Coproduction: How Can Coproduction Teams Increase Traffic on the Pathway to Impact?; Comment on “Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact”

        Abstract | PDF

 

  • Experiences of Research Coproduction in Uganda; Comment on “Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact”

        Abstract | PDF

 

  • Balancing Power and Co-production; Comment on “Research Co-production: An Underused Pathway to Impact”

        Abstract | PDF

 

  • A Co-production Values and Principles Compass to Guide Along the Underused Pathway; Comment on “Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact”

        Abstract | PDF

 

Keywords

References

  1. Squires JE, Cho-Young D, Aloisio LD, et al. Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2022;194(8):E279-E296. doi:1503/cmaj.211416
  2. Braithwaite J, Hibbert PD, Jaffe A, et al. Quality of health care for children in Australia, 2012-2013. JAMA. 2018;319(11):1113-1124. doi:1001/jama.2018.0162
  3. Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy. 2010;6(2):145-159. doi:1332/174426410x502284
  4. Chandler J, Rycroft-Malone J, Hawkes C, Noyes J. Application of simplified complexity theory concepts for healthcare social systems to explain the implementation of evidence into practice. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(2):461-480. doi:1111/jan.12815
  5. Kothari A, Rycroft-Malone J, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Introduction. In: Research Coproduction in Healthcare. Wiley-Blackwell; 2022:1-13.
  6. Rycroft‐Malone J, Graham ID, Kothari A, McCutcheon C. Building blocks for research coproduction: reflections and implications. In: Research Coproduction in Healthcare. Wiley-Blackwell; 2022:290-302. doi:1002/9781119757269.ch16
  7. Conte KP, Davidson S. Using a 'rich picture' to facilitate systems thinking in research coproduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):14. doi:1186/s12961-019-0514-2
  8. Plamondon KM, Bisung E. The CCGHR Principles for Global Health Research: centering equity in research, knowledge translation, and practice. Soc Sci Med. 2019;239:112530. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2019.112530
  9. Hickey G, Brearley S, Coldham T, Denegri S, Green G, Staniszewska S. Guidance on Co-Producing a Research Project. Southampton: INVOLVE; 2021.
  10. Hoekstra F, Mrklas KJ, Khan M, et al. A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):51. doi:1186/s12961-020-0544-9
  11. Orr K, Bennett M. Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic–practitioner research. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72(4):487-495. doi:1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02522.x
  12. Chilisa B. Decolonising transdisciplinary research approaches: an African perspective for enhancing knowledge integration in sustainability science. Sustain Sci. 2017;12(5):813-827. doi:1007/s11625-017-0461-1
  13. Moreno-Cely A, Cuajera-Nahui D, Escobar-Vasquez CG, Vanwing T, Tapia-Ponce N. Breaking monologues in collaborative research: bridging knowledge systems through a listening-based dialogue of wisdom approach. Sustain Sci. 2021;16(3):919-931. doi:1007/s11625-021-00937-8
  14. Bowen S. Should We be Teaching Researchers Humility? Literature Review and Reflection. Ottawa, ON: Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network; 2020:1-11.
  15. Knowles SE, Allen D, Donnelly A, et al. More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):34. doi:1186/s40900-021-00262-5
  16. Williams O, Sarre S, Papoulias SC, et al. Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020;18(1):43. doi:1186/s12961-020-00558-0
  17. Holmes B, Jones C. The role of funders. In: Research Coproduction in Healthcare. Wiley-Blackwell; 2022:271-289.
  18. Boland L, Brosseau L, Caspar S, et al. Reporting health research translation and impact in the curriculum vitae: a survey. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1:20. doi:1186/s43058-020-00021-9
  19. Ostrom E. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev. 1996;24(6):1073-1087. doi:1016/0305-750x(96)00023-x
  20. Staniszewska S, Hickey G, Coutts P, Thurman B, Coldham T. Co-production: a kind revolution. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):4. doi:1186/s40900-022-00340-2

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 02 August 2023
  • Revise Date: 22 April 2024
  • Accept Date: 23 April 2024
  • First Publish Date: 24 April 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics