Abstract
In this perspective paper, we explore the growing enthusiasm for “co-produced” research, focusing in particular on the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health Research's (NIHR) recent adoption of the term co-production. We consider how this interest in co-production is driven by concerns that patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research tends to be “tokenistic” and to reproduce power imbalances between researchers and lay contributors. We argue that these apparent implementation “barriers” or “inconsistencies” need to be understood in relation to the various elements that the institutionalisation of PPI brings together. We show how these elements are articulated in such a way that consumer, managerial, and performative logics and practices are dominant, resulting in limits being placed on the scope and forms of PPI, and the emergence of acts of recalcitrance and impression management. By considering the alternative discursive repertoires made available through co-production, we point to the possibilities co-production presents for moving beyond these dominant tendencies. We argue, however, that such possibilities need to be understood in relation to the constraints of the present. In doing so, we draw attention to the tenacity of the articulations that have historically constituted the institutionalisation of PPI.
Highlights
Indicative of a heightened interest in promoting participatory approaches to knowledge production, the term “co-production” has recently entered the lexicon of research funders in the United Kingdom (Bell and Pahl, 2017)
The UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one funder that appears to be enthused by co-production
As the emphasis on “sharing of power” (Hickey et al, 2018, p. 7) indicates, the NIHR frames co-production as offering a more collaborative and egalitarian mode of involvement than that of conventional patient and public involvement” (PPI) approaches. In this perspective paper we ask whether the embracement of co-production will translate into the enhanced forms of involvement the NIHR speaks of
Summary
In this perspective paper, we explore the growing enthusiasm for “co-produced” research, focusing in particular on the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research’s (NIHR) recent adoption of the term co-production. We explore the growing enthusiasm for “co-produced” research, focusing in particular on the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research’s (NIHR) recent adoption of the term co-production We consider how this interest in co-production is driven by concerns that patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research tends to be “tokenistic” and to reproduce power imbalances between researchers and lay contributors.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have