Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research practice: a systemic approach

Abstract

The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. While seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics’ (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.

The FRAME-IS: a framework for documenting modifications to implementation strategies in healthcare

“…Furthermore, because many implementation strategies may consist of several components delivered in dynamic contexts (e.g., [ 19 ]), changes are typically required to one or more of those components to improve fit or address constraints. Indeed, the modification of implementation strategies fits within co-creation models, in which researchers and stakeholders collaborate to exchange, generate, and utilize knowledge [ 21 – 23 ]. Local modifications are key to co-creation models [ 24 ], which provide opportunities to generate collaborative knowledge about how modifications to implementation strategies impact clinical and implementation outcomes.…”

Tools for Evaluating the Implementation of Complex Education Interventions

“…Such methods that elicit, structure, and use stakeholder knowledge are referred to as knowledge management techniques. A host of resources for designing participatory methods for knowledge management and intervention adaptation are available to researchers (Castelloe et al, 2002;Chen et al, 2013;Hislop, 2013;Kainz & Metz, 2019;Nicholas et al, 2019;Sterman, 2006). Managing knowledge and implementing adaptations often requires extensive time, and it is important to consider the capacities and constraints of participating stakeholders (Rycroft-Malone et al, 2016).…”

Koncepcja koprodukcji wiedzy a tworzenie polityki oparte na dowodach. Analiza literatury przedmiotu

“…Analiza przedstawionego piśmiennictwa prowadzi jednak do wniosku, że definiowanie koprodukcji wiedzy jest utrudnione przez pewne niejasności co do znaczenia pojęcia oraz niekonsekwencje w jego stosowaniu w ramach dyscypliny (Nicholas et al, 2019), które odzwierciedlają problemy z ogólnym definiowaniem koprodukcji.…”

“…Dzięki temu koprodukcja wiedzy może stanowić formę działania na rzecz osób w niej współuczestniczących (jak w przypadku koncepcji zespołu Sherriff). Koprodukcyjna budowa badania jest jednocześnie środkiem i celem koprodukcji wiedzy (Nicholas et al, 2019). Fundamentem tak rozumianego procesu jest niwelowanie nierówności między badaczami i uczestnikami badań czy też naukowcami i obywatelami, które wynikają z czynników instytucjonalnych (autorytet nauki), jak i strukturalnych (różnice klasowe, poziom kapitału kulturowego).…”