Leading co-production in five UK collaborative research partnerships (2008-2018): responses to four tensions from senior leaders using auto-ethnography

VAN DER GRAAD, Peter, KISLOV, Roman, SMITH, Helen, LANGLEY, Joe, HARMER, Natalie, CHEETHAM, Mandy, WOLSTENHOLME, Daniel, COOKE, Jo and MAWSON, Sue (2023). Leading co-production in five UK collaborative research partnerships (2008-2018): responses to four tensions from senior leaders using auto-ethnography. Implementation Science Communications, 4 (1): 12.

Preview

PDF Langley-LeadingCoproductionInFiveUK(VoR).pdf - Published Version Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Background Despite growing enthusiasm for co-production in healthcare services and research, research on co-production practices is lacking. Multiple frameworks, guidelines and principles are available but little empirical research is conducted on ‘how to do’ co-production of research to improve healthcare services. This paper brings together insights from UK-based collaborative research partnerships on leading co-production. Its aim is to inform practical guidance for new partnerships planning to facilitate the co-production of applied health research in the future. Methods Using an auto-ethnographic approach, experiential evidence was elicited through collective sense making from recorded conversations between the research team and senior leaders of five UK-based collaborative research partnerships. This approach applies a cultural analysis and interpretation of the leaders’ behaviours, thoughts, and experiences of co-production taking place in 2008-2018 and involving academics, health practitioners, policy makers, and representatives of third sector organisations. Results The findings highlight a variety of practices across CLAHRCs, whereby the intersection between the senior leaders’ vision and local organisational context in which co-production occurs largely determines the nature of co-production process and outcomes. We identified four tensions in doing co-production: 1) idealistic, tokenistic vs realistic narratives, 2) power differences and (lack of) reciprocity, 3) excluding vs including language and communication, 4) individual motivation vs structural issues. Conclusions The tensions were productive in helping collaborative research partnerships to tailor co-production practices to their local needs and opportunities. Resulting variation in co-production practices across partnerships can therefore be seen as highly advantageous creative adaptation, which makes us question the utility of seeking a unified ‘gold standard’ of co-production. Strategic leadership is an important starting point for finding context-tailored solutions; however, development of more distributed forms of leadership over time is needed to facilitate co-production practices between partners. Facilitating structures for co-production can enable power sharing and boost capacity and capability building, resulting in more inclusive language and communication and, ultimately, more credible practices of co-production in research. We provide recommendations for creating more realistic narratives around co-production and facilitating power sharing between partners.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	A correction to this article was published on 27 January 2023: 10.1186/s43058-023-00401-x
Identification Number:	https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00385-0
SWORD Depositor:	Symplectic Elements
Depositing User:	Symplectic Elements
Date Deposited:	20 Dec 2022 13:08
Last Modified:	11 Oct 2023 16:46
URI:	https://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/31186

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads

Publication Metrics