Co-Production as a Research Method: Reflections From a Collaborative Writing Workshop

Introduction: A Changing Academia

The wave of co-production has affected academic work in two ways: it has encouraged the study of co-production practices in public organizations, and it has also promoted more collaborative research between scholars and practitioners. The ‘co-production turn’ originally referred to participatory methods in the development and execution of public services. Today it has become an umbrella term for various processes of knowledge production in the midst of action (Bell & Pahl, 2018). This turn is also evident in policies and funding calls that encourage co-produced research, that is, research which is not just collaborative between several actors, but research that involves actors whose backgrounds and agendas are different or even contrasting. This chapter focuses on co-production as a research practice. Co-production of knowledge between practitioners and academics is not new. It has been known under rubrics such as ‘action research’, ‘community-campus research’, ‘practitioner research’ and many similar terms. While co-production as a research practice is well-known in many respects, the co-production turn in the public sector puts new emphasis on universities’ changing, often ambiguous roles. Hence, the new emphasis on relevance and transferability of research has given rise to a growing concern from various research communities that the university is becoming subordinated to the needs of the market economy, whose parameters are finance-based and with an imperative to produce ‘fast knowledge’, ‘fast publishing’ and ‘fast teaching’ (Peters, 2014). Simultaneously, researchers have been encouraged to let go of their own epistemic authority and allow knowledge to emerge by being radically open and vulnerable (Rhodes & Carlsen, 2018). Opening up to vulnerability and dealing with or trying to resist speed are two very different discussions. Both, however, address academia’s changing role in society and with this, questions about issues we as researchers want to pursue; foremost of these issues is the why of qualitative research (Packer, 2010).

The vision statement of my own university is entitled Knowledge for the World¹, indicating that the value of research is to be found in its application and usefulness ‘out there’, in the world. Indeed, there are increasing political, economic and managerial indices which compel research to focus on its societal impact, relevance and 'openness' in design, data and research outcomes (Fecher & Friesike, 2014). Here I wish to emphasize that researchers need to be cautious and careful. While many researchers embrace and seek out opportunities for close collaboration with non-academic actors such as industry, public authorities and civil society, there is also a risk that the researcher submits his or her inquiry to the imperatives of having immediate impact, downgrading the intellectual value of in-depth reflection, qualitative nuance and theorizing. There are few reflexive accounts from inside the actual co-production processes, such that these processes tend to take place within magical black boxes. Accordingly, co-production per se seems to appear as the convenient cure-all (the idea being that more co-production will give greater societal impact and faster solving of societal problems). As a result of this quest for immediate impact, many crucial dilemmas, tensions and questions that may arise are either avoided or overlooked.

In this chapter, I seek to open up the black box of co-production using a small case study: a one-day collaborative writing workshop that brought together researchers and practitioners to co-produce a booklet with and for practitioners. The booklet, entitled What Is a Good Nursing Home, was based on a research project on social innovation in nursing homes. I begin by examining the ways in which co-production has affected the roles of researchers and our research. I then describe the specific project, the workshop and the actual booklet, all of which comprise the case study. This is followed by a discussion of three issues of the co-production process that caused great debate during the day. The three aspects I call ‘Wording’, ‘Story’, and ‘Voice’. Finally, I reflect on dilemmas related to power, quality criteria and impact, with a call for further research on these dilemmas from a co-production perspective.