The politics of co-production: risks, limits and pollution

Abstract

Co-production is a risky method of social inquiry. It is time-consuming, ethically complex, emotionally demanding, inherently unstable, vulnerable to external shocks, subject to competing demands and it challenges many disciplinary norms. This is what makes it so fresh and innovative. And yet these research-related risks are rarely discussed and, as a result, risk-reduction strategies remain under-developed within training and research processes. It is for exactly this reason that this article draws upon Mary Douglas’s notion of ‘social pollution’ in order to understand the tensions and challenges of co-production. It seeks to expose the generally hidden politics of co-production.

The challenge of inclusive coproduction: The importance of situated rituals and emotional inclusivity in the coproduction of health research projects

“…Beyond the idealized coproduction narrative, there remain many barriers to fostering a research environment in which diverse stakeholders can contribute to research, especially where there are varying priorities, inequalities in status, and different methods of practice (Flinders, Wood, & Cunningham, ). Previous studies highlight that coproduced research initiatives are influenced by how individuals interact and work together (Evans & Scarbrough, ; Flinders et al, ). In particular, the literature advocates the importance of inclusion and meaningful partnerships between all stakeholders (cf.…”

“…The public and patient involvement (PPI) agenda in healthcare has successfully established the principle that patient and public perspectives should be involved in policy‐making, service planning, and evidence production; although the extent to which PPI is realized meaningfully remains open to debate (Martin, ). However, meaningfully engaging diverse stakeholders in research remains challenging as there may be varying levels of experience, multiple ontological and epistemological differences, and competing values, pressures, and goals (Flinders et al, ). Coproduced research can be vulnerable to what Flinders et al (, p. 269) describe as an “expectation gap,” where stakeholders and research team members have different expectations of what will occur in the project and how and when it will occur.…”

Beneath the Surface of the First World Ocean Assessment: An Investigation Into the Global Process’ Support for Sustainable Development

“…While co-designing and co-producing knowledge aims to increase participation and equalize power dynamics, these are not feats that occur over short timelines. It takes a huge amount of resource investment and time Flinders et al, 2016). van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2015) suggest that co-production and co-design are "grown" and developed as opposed to "implemented."…”

Charting knowledge co‐production pathways in climate and development

“…Mitlin, 2008). Flinders, Wood, & Cunningham (2016) have similarly pointed to a "'rhetoric-reality gap' between what is promised and what is delivered" in co-production in the social sciences (216, p. 262).…”