Skip to main content
Log in

Moving from Collaboration to Co-production in International Research

  • Commentary
  • Published:
The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In her recent article, Bender offers a timely reflection on research-practice collaborations (RPCs). In this commentary, we expand on Bender’s main findings by reflecting on RPCs within the context of broader trends towards knowledge co-production. We offer some ethical reflections on two particular aspects of co-production that are relevant to any collaboration involving ‘practice’: epistemic equality and community participation. Both are necessary to shift the axis of these collaborations towards a mode of knowledge production that is action-oriented and empowering.

Résumé

Dans son récent article, Bender propose une réflexion opportune sur la collaboration entre recherche et pratique (CRP). Dans ce commentaire, nous développons les principales conclusions de Bender en réfléchissant à la CRP dans le cadre de la tendance générale vers la co-création de connaissances. Nous proposons quelques pistes de réflexion éthique sur deux aspects spécifiques de la co-création, qui sont pertinents pour toute collaboration impliquant une « pratique»: l'égalité épistémique et la participation communautaire. Ces deux aspects sont nécessaires pour orienter cette collaboration vers un mode de création des connaissances tourné vers l'action et l'autonomisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

adapted from Wasi (2000) and based on the knowledge typology of Enengel et al. (2012) and the principles of co-production of Norström et al. (2020)

References

  • Bell, D.M., and K. Pahl. 2018. Co-production: Towards a utopian approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 21: 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender, K. 2022. Research-practice-collaborations in international sustainable development and knowledge production—Reflections from a political-economic perspective. European Journal of Development Research.

  • Beran, D., M. Lazo-Porras, M.K. Cardenas, F. Chappuis, A. Damasceno, N. Jha, and J.J. Miranda. 2018. Moving from formative research to co-creation of interventions: insights from a community health system project in Mozambique. Nepal and Peru. BMJ Global Health 3 (6): e001183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, E. S. 2000. No more throw-away people The co-production imperative, Washington D.C.: Essential Books Ltd.

  • Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R.B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 8086–8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, J.I. 1998. Nothing about us without us. In Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • De Sousa Santos, B. 2015. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Enengel, B., A. Muhar, M. Penker, B. Freyer, S. Drlik, and F. Ritter. 2012. Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development—An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landscape and Urban Planning 105: 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., and H. Nowotny. 2001. The potential of transdisciplinarity. In Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science technology and society, ed. J.T. Klein, et al. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, L., E. Barasa, L. Brady, N. Kagwanja, N. Nxumalo, J. Nzinga, S. Molyneux, and B. Tsofa. 2021. Collective sensemaking for action: Researchers and decision makers working collaboratively to strengthen health systems. BMJ 372: m4650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goitom, M. 2019. ‘Legitimate knowledge’: An auto-ethnographical account of an African writing past the white gaze in academia. Social Epistemology 33: 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulart, P., and R. Falanga. 2022. Co-production and voice in policymaking: Participatory processes in the European periphery European Journal of Development Research, XXXXXX.

  • Hall, B., and R. Tandon. 2017. Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education. Research for All 1: 6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagosh, J., P.L. Bush, J. Salsberg, A.C. Macaulay, T. Greenhalgh, G. Wong, M. Cargo, L.W. Green, C.P. Herbert, and P. Pluye. 2015. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: Partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health 15: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 2004. States of knowledge. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jo, S., and T. Nabatchi. 2016. Getting Back to Basics: Advancing the Study and Practice of Coproduction. International Journal of Public Administration 39: 1101–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keikelame, M.J., and L. Swartz. 2019. Decolonising research methodologies: Lessons from a qualitative research project, Cape Town, South Africa. Global Health Action 12: 1561175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, S., and K. Bender. 2020. Roles, processes and risks within the research—Practice nexus: Perspectives from academia. Bonn: European Association for Development Research and Training Institutes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, I.J., J. Chubb, and J. Forstenzer. 2021. Epistemic corruption and the research impact agenda. Theory and Research in Education 19: 148–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, D.J., A. Wiek, and H. von Wehrden. 2017. Bridging divides in sustainability science. Sustainability Science 12: 875–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepore, W., B.L. Hall, and R. Tandon. 2021. The Knowledge for Change Consortium: A decolonising approach to international collaboration in capacity-building in community-based participatory research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne D’études Du Développement 42: 347–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marten, R., F. El-Jardali, A. Hafeez, J. Hanefeld, G.M. Leung, and A. Ghaffar. 2021. Co-producing the covid-19 response in Germany, Hong Kong, Lebanon, and Pakistan. BMJ 372: n243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzocchi, F. 2018. Under what conditions may Western science and indigenous knowledge be jointly used and what does this really entail? Insights from a Western perspectivist stance. Social Epistemology 32: 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, T., P. Best, G. Davidson, T. McEneaney, C. Cantrell, and M. Tully. 2018. Coproduction for feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials: Learning outcomes for community partners, service users and the research team. Research Involvement and Engagement 4: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mormina, M., and R. Istratii. 2021. ‘Capacity for what? Capacity for whom?’ A decolonial deconstruction of research capacity development practices in the Global South and a proposal for a value-centred approach [version 1; peer review: 1 approved]. Wellcome Open Research, 6.

  • Mutiso, V.N., I. Gitonga, A. Musau, C.W. Musyimi, E. Nandoya, T.J. Rebello, K.M. Pike, and D.M. Ndetei. 2018. A step-wise community engagement and capacity building model prior to implementation of mhGAP-IG in a low- and middle-income country: A case study of Makueni County, Kenya. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 12: 57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, B., C. Leyshon, M. Leyshon, and T. Walker. 2016. Co-production in service delivery: Opportunities and barriers. University of Exeter. https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/research/microsites/sig/resources/co-production-in-service-delivery-a-literature-review-2016.pdf. Accessed.

  • Norström, A.V., C. Cvitanovic, M.F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A.T. Bednarek, E.M. Bennett, R. Biggs, and A. de Bremond. 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3: 182–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, K., A. Kothari, and N. Mays. 2019. The dark side of coproduction: Do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Research Policy and Systems 17: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, K. 1996. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development 24: 1073–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, C., S. Rist, A. Zimmermann, P. Fry, G.S. Gurung, F. Schneider, C.I. Speranza, B. Kiteme, S. Boillat, and E. Serrano. 2010. Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy 37: 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, D., N. Mathurapote, W. Putthasri, T. Posayanonda, P. Pinprateep, S.D. Courcelles, R. Bichon, A. Allouc, E. Ros, and A. Delobre. 2017. The triangle that moves the mountain: Nine years of Thailand’s National Health Assembly (2008–2016). Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, K.S., S. Ghosh-Jerath, and R. Sadanandan. 2021. Health policy and systems research: Ethical challenges in co-production of knowledge [Online]. The BMJ. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/02/16/health-policy-and-systems-research-ethical-challenges-in-co-production-of-knowledge/. Accessed March 2021.

  • Redman, S., T. Greenhalgh, L. Adedokun, S. Staniszewska, and S. Denegri. 2021. Co-production of knowledge: The future. BMJ 372: n434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Research-England. 2020. Research excellence framework [Online]. Available: https://www.ref.ac.uk/ [Accessed].

  • Smith, L.T. 2004. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangcharoensathien, V., S. Sirilak, P. Sritara, W. Patcharanarumol, A. Lekagul, W. Isaranuwatchai, W. Wittayapipopsakul, and O. Chandrasiri. 2021. Co-production of evidence for policies in Thailand: From concept to action. BMJ 372: m4669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. 2014. ‘Being useful’after the Ivory Tower: Combining research and activism with the B rixton P ound. Area 46: 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thambinathan, V., and E.A. Kinsella. 2021. Decolonizing methodologies in qualitative research: Creating spaces for transformative praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 20: 16094069211014766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, E., T. Metze, C. Wyborn, N. Klenk, and E. Louder. 2020. The politics of co-production: Participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ungsuchaval, T. 2016. NGOization of Civil Society as unintended consequence? Premises on the Thai Health Promotion Foundation and its pressures toward NGOs in Thailand. In: 12th International conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research, 2016 Ersta Sköndal University College, Stockholm, Sweden.

  • UNICEF. 2015. Situation analysis of adolescent pregnancy in Thailand: Synthesis report 2015. Bangkok: UNICEF Thailand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanyoro, K.P., K. Hawkins, M. Greenall, H. Parry, and L. Keeru. 2019. Local ownership of health policy and systems research in low-income and middle-income countries: A missing element in the uptake debate. BMJ Global Health 4: e001523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasi, P. 2000. “Triangle that moves the mountain” and health systems reform movement in Thailand. Human Resources for Health Development Journal 4: 106–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, O., S. Sarre, S.C. Papoulias, S. Knowles, G. Robert, P. Beresford, D. Rose, S. Carr, M. Kaur, and V.J. Palmer. 2020. Lost in the shadows: Reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health Research Policy and Systems 18: 43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, A., H. Tait, F. El Jardali, L. Wolfenden, S. Thackway, J. Stewart, L. O’leary, and J. Dixon. 2019. How are evidence generation partnerships between researchers and policy-makers enacted in practice? A qualitative interview study. Health Research Policy and Systems 17: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

MM is supported by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 203132).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Cai Heath or Maru Mormina.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heath, C., Mormina, M. Moving from Collaboration to Co-production in International Research. Eur J Dev Res 34, 1704–1715 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00552-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00552-y

Keywords

Navigation