Co-produced Research Research Articles

Research as usual in humanitarian settings? Equalising power in academic-NGO research partnerships through co-production

BackgroundResearch partnerships in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings can reveal complex power hierarchies between academics and NGOs. During the process of research, decision-making may skew in favour of more powerful actors, who often direct the scope of the research, hold the budget and lead the analysis. Co-production is increasingly emerging as a helpful approach that attempts to equalise power dynamics during research. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the main challenges associated with a “research as usual” approach to research partnerships in humanitarian settings, as power hierarchies may be particularly magnified in these settings.MethodsThis paper is based on a comprehensive literature review and 32 semi-structured interviews with academics and practitioners from non-government organisations. Participants were selected purposively based on their experience in co-producing research or working within research partnerships. Some participants had worked in humanitarian settings while others had experience co-producing research in non-humanitarian contexts. We used Nvivo to thematically code data.ResultsThis paper documents the problems with “research as usual” partnerships in humanitarian settings, specifically: the burden on communities as merely sources of data, certain forms of knowledge being valued over others, lack of reflection on the power hierarchies structuring research partnerships, top-down decision-making and lack of transparency, one-way “capacity-building”, lack of mutual benefit, and rigid research processes and timeframes.ConclusionThis paper highlights key challenges with standard research practices in humanitarian settings and identifies seven key principles of co-production that can be helpful in attempting to equalise power dynamics within research partnerships, specifically in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings.

Negotiating cultural appropriation while re-imagining co-production via Afrofuturism

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the role of claims of cultural appropriation in negotiating who has the right to utilise specific racial, cultural or communities' ways of knowing in research co-production. Cultural appropriation is a claim made against those making illegitimate use of traditions, knowledge and practises that originate from specific racial and/or cultural group. Appropriation helps us interrogate the ways in which rewards and benefits in academia are distributed and shared, denied or hoarded, and by whom.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is a dialogue between two researchers in the in-betweens of research co-production, specifically in the negotiation of claiming the right to lead or engage in Afrofuturist work with communities.FindingsThe claim of cultural appropriation is useful in naming, drawing boundaries and creating spaces for negotiation around access and ownership of academic work but must also develop as part of a broader transformative agenda towards racial equality in academia.Research limitations/implicationsIn addition to ethical considerations about power imbalances and extractive practises, research co-production should also be concerned with acknowledging and crediting knowledge production practises that originate from specific racial and/or cultural groups.Originality/valueThis is the first paper to explore issues of cultural appropriation in research co-production, and co-production in relation to Afrofuturism. This extends ethical concerns on research co-production beyond academic power imbalances with, and extracting value from, communities to negotiating the relationships between academics and traditions, knowledge and practises developed by specific racial and/or cultural groups.

Patient and Public Involvement in research: A journey to co-production

The public and patients can be powerful sensors for shaping and powering healthcare research. They are joining research teams as investigators and collaborators to co-produce evidence for the practical use of interventions in clinical practice. While clinicians and researchers are encouraged by funders and policymakers to involve the public and patients as partners in research, knowledge on what involvement consists of is limited, and the continuum between consultation, collaboration and co-production are not clearly defined. In this article, we explore Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and introduce greater involvement through research co-production. Co-production describes ways that research partnership can work through public and patient involvement and we outline the similarities of co-production to “The Commons”, a strategy utilized by economists to increase effective use of resources. We share examples of how public and patient involvement have used co-production, to demonstrate financial and health benefits. We then outline practical challenges at system, social and cultural levels and consider how others have worked to resolve them.

Community-Based Importance and Quantification of Ecosystem Services, Disservices, Drivers, and Neotropical Dry Forests in a Rural Colombian Municipality

Few studies analyze people’s preferences for ecosystem services (ES), disservices (ED) and drivers of change in less populated, tropical municipalities. Understanding such preferences and needs by the community and stakeholder groups before actually assessing, modelling, and measuring the supply of ES is key for decision-making and planning in municipalities, as well as for the conservation of nearby neotropical dry forests. We studied these dynamics in a small rural municipality in Colombia with limited data availability using semi-structured interviews and surveys, as well as ES-proxies and geospatial analyses. We then analyzed the supply and importance of two community identified ES and one ED from adjacent neotropical dry forests during 2005–2017. We found that respondents recognized air purification and food production as the most important ES. Increased temperatures and fires were the most important ED, while fires were also identified as an important driver of change. Air purification, via pollutant deposition to forest cover, remained approximately constant (116 ton/year), while food production (49 ton/ha) and fire occurrence, an ED, increased. Findings show how transdisciplinary research and participatory knowledge co-production among local communities, researchers and land management institutions can improve governance, decision making, policy uptake and planning efforts.

Towards epistemic justice doing: Examining the experiences and shifts in knowledge of lived experience researchers over the course of a mental health research training programme.

Participation of people with lived experience (LE) in mental health research is vital for improving the quality and relevance of research priorities, outcomes, and knowledge translation. Inclusion of people with LE is also recognized as central for achieving health service reform including commitments to human rights, social, and epistemic justice. Although a lack of research training is cited as a barrier to LE participation, few studies have examined the value of training for, or the specific requirements of, people with LE. This study seeks to address this gap. It reports on a longitudinal, qualitative study examining shifts in experience and knowledge, and unmet needs, of people with LE over the course of a coproduced research training programme. Findings indicate that the programme enabled participants to understand the role, value, and levels of LE participation in research. Participants also stressed the importance of the 'embodied lived expertise' of LE researchers who co-delivered the training programme. Nonetheless, participants indicated that they felt unprepared for the challenges of working in systems where LE knowledge is subordinated, and experiences of being silenced and powerless could mirror those previously experienced in mental health services and the community. Participants indicated a need for training that provided them with the epistemic resources to render such experiences intelligible. Findings also indicate that training in participatory research is required for conventional mental health researchers, to support them to navigate power asymmetries and value LE knowledge contributions.

Trauma informed participatory research: Reflections on co-producing a research proposal

This article discusses the development of a co-produced research proposal. The authors reflect on the process of this work and some of the challenges that were experienced by a team who had a mix of lived, clinical and academic experience of the research topic. We highlight the need to embed trauma informed principles into co-produced research and the ways in which doing so can support the development of co-produced work. As such, the article focuses on how we established safety, choice, collaboration, trustworthiness and empowerment during the process of developing the proposal. Within this we offer our reflection on some of the challenges we experienced and our learning from undertaking this work.

Opening the black box of conservation philanthropy: A co-produced research agenda on private foundations in marine conservation

In the ‘new Gilded Age’ of mega-wealth and big philanthropy, academics are not paying enough attention to private foundations. Mirroring upward trends in philanthropy broadly, marine conservation philanthropy has more than doubled in recent years, reaching virtually every globally salient marine conservation issue in all corners of the planet. This paper argues that marine conservation philanthropy warrants a dedicated research agenda because private foundations are prominent, unique, and under-studied actors seeking to shape the future of a “frontier” space. We present a co-produced social science research agenda on marine conservation philanthropy that reflects the priorities of 106 marine conservation donors, practitioners, and stakeholders who participated in a research co-design process in 2018. These “research co-designers” raised 137 unique research questions, which we grouped into five thematic research priorities: outcomes, governance roles, exits, internal foundation governance, and funding landscape. We identify issues of legitimacy, justice, and applied best practice as cross-cutting research priorities that came up throughout the five themes. Participants from the NGO, foundation, and government sectors identified questions within all five themes and three cross-cutting issues, underscoring shared interest in this work from diverse groups. The research we call for herein can inform the practice of conservation philanthropy at a time when foundations are increasingly reckoning with their role as institutions of power in society. This paper is broadly relevant for social and natural scientists, practitioners, donors, and policy-makers interested in better understanding private philanthropy in any environmental context globally.

It's our museum too: co-producing research in a university museum through a nursery residency programme

PurposeThe authors draw on Howard and Thomas-Hughes' (2020) framework for quality assessment of co-produced research, to interrogate our assumptions and processes and to reflect on our project. They consider if they achieved our planned outcomes around developing practice, enabling a range of voices and perspectives within their research, and enacting change within the university museum.Design/methodology/approachThe authors’ early years residency programme explores the potential of collaborations with community groups to transform knowledge and practice through action research. As museum educators, the authors find synergy between the participatory pedagogies underpinning their practice and the co-construction of knowledge within action research. Both are committed to enabling diverse interpretations within a collective and supportive framework. Within their project, practitioners from the museum and playgroup worked collaboratively to collect video footage, photos, children's artwork and reflective journals and memos.FindingsThe process of action, observation and reflection revealed much about the authors’ different perspectives and they found variations in both pedagogy and practice. Although the authors had a shared commitment to providing high quality, memorable, exciting opportunities for the children, the exploratory nature of the project meant that they did not agree what these experiences might look like in advance, and so they had different understandings of what they saw.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the authors’ methodological framework was designed to make their research collaborative, structural challenges and the contexts of the art museum and university reinforced long established hierarchies. While some felt supported by the research process and the prestige of working with a university museum to gain legitimacy for their practice, others were disempowered by these same structures. The authors consider their obligations as practitioner-researchers to become aware of the role they play in maintaining, as well as challenging, hierarchies and assumptions.Originality/valueYoung children in museums is a growing area of study and this practitioner-led action research project develop a new strand of enquiry within this field. Through this research the authors can collaborate with community partners to record, analyse and make visible the many different ways in which young children experience the museum. As research led institutions, university museums are ideally placed to develop research in partnership with local public bodies and community groups. However, future work in this area would benefit from a more explicit consideration of the constraints implicit within the institutions within which they all operate.

Practicing co-produced research: tackling domestic abuse through innovative multi-agency partnership working

Increased momentum for co-production in policing research undoubtedly requires collaborative research efforts which include methodologies, philosophies, ethos and indeed partnerships of co-production. This paper explores collaborative research efforts to apply co-production in policing research. It does so through a focus on research and evaluation of the policing of domestic abuse and with emphasis on innovations through multi-agency partnerships. It discusses the challenges of practicing co-produced research in these contexts drawing on two research projects. One experience of research was a contracted evaluation of an innovative approach to tackling domestic abuse. This is used to reflect retrospectively through the prism of doing co-produced research. The second experience of research is used to reflect on having engaged in co-produced research from outset. The paper offers particular insight in to practicing co-produced research in the context of tackling domestic abuse through innovative multi-agency partnership working and more broadly for those engaged in academic–police collaborations in other areas of policing. Furthermore, the reflections may be useful in terms of academic colleagues framing their societal impact in line with the ethos, philosophy and praxis of co-produced research.

Institutional Ethics Challenges to Sex Work Researchers: Committees, Communities, and Collaboration

Doing research in the field of sex work studies throws up challenges. Among these are the restrictions and regulatory issues placed on researchers by institutional ethical review processes. We draw on academic research and our personal experiences as two researchers who have been involved with many sex work research projects to illustrate how sex work researchers face a set of challenges relating to ethics – we define these as institutional ethics challenges rather than ethical challenges. They are the challenges associated with applying for and obtaining ethical approval from research institutions and funders to conduct research on stigmatised and potentially criminalised topics. This article has three aims. First, to discuss the institutional ethics challenges that sex work researchers may encounter when applying for ethical clearance. Second, to assist researchers in making a case for their research by communicating the value of doing research on sex work in contexts where it remains criminalised and by placing the assumed risks associated with sex work research into perspective. Finally, to offer a pathway forward regarding how, guided by co-produced research protocols, researchers and sex work Communities can find common ground for good practice to enhance collaboration and foster genuinely ethical research.

A realist evaluation of a collaborative model to support research co-production in long-term care settings in England: the ExCHANGE protocol

BackgroundCollaborative working between academic institutions and those who provide health and social care has been identified as integral in order to produce acceptable, relevant, and timely research, and for outputs to be useful and practical to implement. The ExCHANGE Collaboration aims to bring together researchers and people working, living in and visiting care homes to build capacity, share and mobilise knowledge, and identify key areas for future research. This paper describes an embedded, formative, realist and theory-driven evaluation which aims to gather information about how successful the ExCHANGE Collaboration is perceived to be in achieving its aims. An existing realist programme theory from the literature – Closer Collaboration – will be supplemented by two substantive theories: Co-production and Knowledge Brokering. This will result in an initial programme theory which will be tested by this formative evaluation to refine understanding of how the ExCHANGE Collaboration works.MethodsThe evaluation will employ mixed qualitative methods, including: analysis of documents such as feedback forms, Knowledge Broker journal/diary, event attendance records, risk and issues logs and other relevant paperwork gathered as part of project delivery; observations of events/activities; and interviews with care home providers and staff, care home residents, residents’ family members, and researchers who are involved in the project (both project design/delivery, and also attendance or involvement in project activities/events). Framework Analysis will be used to interpret the data collected; analysis will be strategic, by focusing on particular key areas of importance in the developing theory of how the ExCHANGE Collaboration might achieve change.ResultsThe results of this study are expected to be published in 2022.DiscussionThis evaluation will investigate how successful the ExCHANGE Collaboration is perceived to be in achieving its aims, in what way, in which contexts, and how this may differ for those involved. It will do this by testing an initial programme theory about how the collaboration works, for whom, under which circumstances, and in what way. Findings will be shared through written publication, an end of project learning event for those involved/interested in the project, and a lay summary to be made publically available.

Involving people affected by a rare condition in shaping future genomic research

BackgroundThere is evidence that involving potential participants and the public in co-designing research can improve the quality of the study design, recruitment and acceptability of the research, but appropriate methodologies for doing this are not always clear. In this study we co-designed a way of involving people affected by a rare genomic disease in shaping future genomic research about the condition. The aim was to report the process, experiences and outcomes of involving people in genomic research in a standardised way, in order to inform future methods of involvement in research co-production.MethodParticipants were recruited from an online community hosted by an Australian-based rare disease charity and were over the age 18 years. Once people gave consent, we shared learning resources with participants and invited them to complete an online survey before joining a two-week facilitated online discussion, followed by a second online survey. We used the novel tool ‘Standardised Data on Initiatives - Alpha Version 0.1’ (STARDIT) to map preferences, plan involvement and report any outcomes from the process, with quantitative data analysed descriptively and qualitative data thematically analysed.ResultsOf the 26 people who gave consent and completed the initial survey, 15 participated in the online discussion and 12 completed the follow-up survey. STARDIT was used to report six outcomes from the process, including 60% of participants’ responses showing a change towards ‘widening’ their view of who should be involved in research to include more people. Outcomes also included an improved understanding of research and how to be involved. Participants enjoyed online discussions, found learning resources useful and asked to stay involved in the research process. The partner organisation reported that a similar online discussion will be used in future research prioritisation processes.ConclusionInvolving people in co-designing the process improved the study design, ensuring it met the needs of participants. Whilst the study includes participants from only one disease group, using STARDIT allowed us to map people’s preferences and report the methods and outcomes from involving people, providing a way for learning from this case study to inform future research studies beyond the discipline of public health genomics.

Applying constructivist grounded theory in co-production research: a case study exploring its potential and lessons for construction management research

The last decade has seen a drive within construction management (CM) research for greater collaboration between academia and practice to improve the impact and relevance of research. Co-production, where academics and practitioners are engaged in framing the research problem, theory building, research design and problem solving, provides potential for engaged research which achieves mutual benefits in terms of theory and practice outcomes. To benefit from this trend, CM researchers require to revisit their established approaches. Under explored in CM research, this study identifies the potential of applying constructivist grounded theory (CGT) as an approach that enhance co-production research. The paper provides reflexive accounts of what makes CGT a suitable approach for co-production and presents a synthesis of its application in practice, reflecting on its strengths and weaknesses in the context of co-production. The applicability of the approach is illustrated through a case study on facilities performance measurement in the NHS. CGT contributed in the questioning of the scope and underlying assumptions leading to co-produced research which provided theoretical insight which underpinned guidance for future development by NHS Scotland. The findings indicate that CGT is a well-established, rigorous and reliable approach that is viable for conducting co-production research.

Making Public Involvement in Research More Inclusive of People With Complex Speech and Motor Disorders: The I-ASC Project.

In this study, we aimed to identify processes that enabled the involvement of a person with complex speech and motor disorders and the parent of a young person with these disorders as co-researchers in a U.K. research project. Semi-structured individual and focus group interviews explored participants’ experiences and perceptions of public involvement (PI). Sixteen participants were recruited, with representation from (a) the interdisciplinary project team; (b) academics engaged in discrete project activities; (c) individuals providing organizational and operational project support; and (d) the project’s two advisory groups. Data were analyzed using Framework Analysis. Five themes were generated: (a) the challenge of defining the co-researcher role; (b) power relations in PI; (c) resources used to enable PI; (d) perceived benefits of PI; and (e) facilitators of successful PI. Our findings provide new evidence about how inclusive research teams can support people with complex speech and motor disorders to contribute meaningfully to co-produced research.

The logic and integration of coproductive research approaches

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to clarify the methodological logic of coproductive research approaches like action research, collaborative research, interactive research and participatory research in a way that can clarify its effectiveness and scientific qualities in high quality knowledge production, and show the way that it can be integrated with institutionalized textbook science.Design/methodology/approachThe paper clarifies the character of coproduction as research methodology concept, the logic of coproductive research approaches, and its characteristics compared to quantitative and qualitative methodology. A model for characterizing research approaches from leading textbook social science is developed to specify the character of coproductive research approaches and support integration in mainstream research methodology discussions.FindingsThe paper develops a research methodology framework for coproductive logic and approaches to research, to support the integration of this type of approaches in mainstream research methodology.Research limitations/implicationsThe developed model of coproductive research approaches is not empirically described. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test and further develop the model in relation to cases and designs of research projects.Practical implicationsThe paper is helpful for guiding the design of coproductive research in practice, i.e., in research project development or in research methodology education.Social implicationsThe development of coproductive research approaches supports making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions. It also is enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes, thus the democratization of research and knowledge production.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to integration of the family of coproductive approaches in mainstream research methodology discussion through the development and elaboration of a framework for organizing the description and development of coproductive research approaches. The aim is that the framework is valuable for both academics, practitioners and students in designing coproductive research projects.

Consumer experiences of care coordination for people living with chronic conditions and other complex needs: an inclusive and co-produced research study

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore consumer experiences of care coordination within Barwon Health's Hospital Admission Risk Program (HARP) located in Geelong, Victoria.MethodsThe study design was qualitative description informed by phenomenology and inclusive and co-production methodology. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of six consumers living with chronic conditions and other complex needs. Participants were asked about their lived experience related to accessing the service, communication, and health and supports before and after accessing the service using an interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis.ResultsFive themes were identified: (1) experiencing authentic, values-based care; (2) collaborative care and working together; (3) gaining independence; (4) improved health and quality of life; and (5) limited understanding of HARP at the start. Overall, participants' experiences were positive, which related to improved health, quality of life, and sustainable supports. Although gains were experienced, most of the participants identified that their knowledge of HARP was limited when services commenced, which is an area for service improvement.ConclusionThis research begins to address the knowledge gap related to consumer experiences of care coordination. Findings highlight the importance of providing person-centred, authentic and values-based care, listening authentically, and promoting consumer voice within services. The study demonstrates that inclusive, co-design research is feasible in this service context, and further research is recommended into how stakeholders understand the function of care coordination services to promote health and prevent hospital readmissions, and improve consumer participation.What is known about the topic?Care coordination is multifaceted, with the primary purpose of facilitating person-centred care through appropriate and timely delivery of healthcare services. Despite the effectiveness of care coordination programs in preventing avoidable hospital admissions and reducing hospital length of stay, there is a paucity of research that has investigated consumer perspectives. There is also limited research that has adopted an inclusive research design of knowledge co-production where clinicians and consumers are included as equal members of the research team.What does this paper add?The study findings provide evidence into the value of care coordination from the perspective of consumers living with chronic conditions and other complex health and psychosocial issues. The findings also extend evidence into person- and consumer-centred care through understanding the qualities of care coordination practice that promote authenticity, integrity and positive health outcomes. Listening is identified as a critical element of authentic, values-based care, and as a care coordination intervention. Finally, the study demonstrates that inclusive, co-design research is feasible in this service context, and a larger-scale Experience-Based Co-Design study is recommended to investigate how stakeholders understand the function of care coordination services to promote health and prevent hospital readmissions and improve consumer participation.What are the implications for practitioners?The study informs practitioners of consumer lived experience of care coordination. Practitioners are recommended to apply the findings to practice by adopting an authentic, values-based and person-centred care approach described in the study findings. Service improvement initiatives are recommended to focus on increasing awareness of care coordination services through consumer participation and the meaningful inclusion of consumer voice, which could focus on education for referring health and social care professionals.

On Collaboration and Communication “In the Now”

On Collaboration and Communication "In the Now" Jennifer Hart, Victoria Ogoegbunam Okoye, and Joseph Oduro-Frimpong We are three scholars, situated in different disciplines, institutions, and geographies, who have built relationships with one another through our research in Accra, Ghana. In this editorial, we reflect on our ways of relating, supporting, and learning from one another as a starting point to consider the journal's new section, "In the Now." We coauthored this editorial through a process of engaging together in a virtual conversation, followed by a collective transcription for focus and clarity, and then an incorporation of editors' comments via revision and resubmission. Our attempt through this mode of conversation is to preserve our perspectives and voices, to acknowledge our positionalities, and to enact our commitment to research coproduction and scholarly collaboration and exchange, which are fundamental to our work. We here differentiate among coauthorship (our practice of conversing and writing together to produce a piece of academic scholarship), collaboration (which generates socially relevant knowledge by bridging scholarship to wider society and including the participation of diverse social actors and forms of knowledge), and coproduction (the inclusion of research participants as active decision-makers throughout the research process, as in setting research design, producing data, analyzing, and disseminating research learnings) (Phillips et al. 2012). We reflect critically on the limitations of traditional scholarly forms and consider more flexible, open, and accountable approaches to scholarship, drawing on our own experiences and practices. In doing so, we wish to think about how an approach to scholarship rooted in care might inform the way we respond to this moment, in terms of the challenges wrought by the pandemic and the renewed calls to address elitism, epistemic and structural violence, and racial inequality in the academy. While we look forward to continuing this conversation among ourselves, we hope it can be iterative within our broader scholarly community. The lack of conclusion to our conversation should be considered an invitation for further discussion. Victoria Ogoegbunam Okoye: So here we are. … I was just going to start with the questions we'd [developed together in preparation for this conversation]. The first question is what does it mean to do scholarship in dialogue? [End Page 88] I think about the three of us, in different disciplines and doing different research projects; we come from different heritages, and our institutional and geographic locations are different. [Victoria is a Nigerian-American PhD researcher in urban studies and planning at the University of Sheffield, UK; Joseph Oduro-Frimpong is a Ghanaian and senior lecturer in humanities and social sciences at Ashesi University, Ghana; and Jennifer Hart is a white American and associate professor of history at Wayne State University, USA.] It's our research and teaching in Accra that brought us together. For example, Frimpong and I worked together in Accra in 2018 and 2019, part of a team that organized and ran weeklong architecture-writing workshops for Ghanaian and Nigerian undergraduate and graduate students (Accra Architecture Writing Workshop, n.d. a., n.d. b.). While we're not doing formal research projects together, we're in dialogue with each other about our research projects. I know the richness that's brought for me and my work as a PhD researcher. In 2019, I was collaborating with my research partner, Spread-Out Initiative NGO, to coproduce research in Nima. Frimpong and I'd meet at Choco-Pain coffee shop to discuss how this work was evolving—our stops, starts, and insights. These conversations enabled me to think through questions that continually emerged in this research, such as the way Nima residents critically ask, "Am I not a human being?" of their spatial experiences of marginalization. My conversations with Frimpong, who researches and writes from the framing of popular culture, guided me as I worked through it, understanding space and experiences through a cultural understanding of the human. I think of conversations with Jennifer as she's writing her new book—which encouraged me to think through informality and its histories, in ways that might shape space and place in my own research. I don't know if there's a way to replicate our way of being in dialogue...

Social, cultural and community engagement and mental health: cross-disciplinary, co-produced research agenda.

There is increasing cross-disciplinary research on the relationship between individuals' social, cultural and community engagement (SCCE) and mental health. SCCE includes engagement in the arts, culture and heritage, libraries and literature, sports and nature activities, volunteering, and community groups. Research has demonstrated the effects of these activities both on the prevention and management of mental illness. However, it remains unclear whether current research is focusing on the research questions that are of most immediate urgency and relevance to policy and practice. The current project was funded as part of the UK Research and Innovation cross-disciplinary mental health network programme to develop and co-produce a new cross-disciplinary research agenda on SCCE and mental health. Established processes and principles for developing health research agendas were followed, with a six-phase design including engagement with over 1000 key stakeholders, consultations, integration of findings and collective prioritisation of key questions. We identified four core themes: the mode of engagement, process of engagement, impact of engagement and infrastructure required to facilitate engagement. There were many points of agreement across all stakeholder groups on the priority questions within these themes, but also some specific questions of relevance to different sectors. This agenda is particularly timely given the extreme pressure on mental health services predicted to follow the current COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify how resources from other sectors can be mobilised, and what research questions are going to be most important to fund to support SCCE for mental health.

Negotiating Leadership in Interdisciplinary Co-Productive Research: A Case Study of An International Community-Based Project Between Collaborators From South Africa and the United Kingdom

In the absence of empirical and conceptual considerations of the negotiation of leadership in teams doing community-based research, this article adds to the leadership literature by offering a critical reflection on positioning and collaborative teams in the context of one interdisciplinary, co-productive, cross-generational and international research project. The project focused on youth and community resilience to drought in South Africa. Fourteen co-researchers reflected on their experiences of leadership within the project, using a collectively developed questionnaire. Findings uniquely highlight wider ethical considerations when youth and novice researchers are included in research teams. A strong emphasis on cultural responsiveness was found; with local and culturally led leadership seen to positively influence both processes and outcomes. Reflections suggest collaboration may be approached as an “ethos” and aided by transformational leadership theories and methodologies. Findings may be especially relevant to research teams, funders, and ethical bodies.

Flipping the paradigm: a qualitative exploration of research translation centres in the United Kingdom and Australia

BackgroundOver the past decade, Research Translation Centres (RTCs) have been established in many countries. These centres (sometimes referred to as Academic Health Science Centres) are designed to bring universities and healthcare providers together in order to accelerate the generation and translation of new evidence that is responsive to health service and community priorities. This has the potential to effectively ‘flip’ the traditional research and education paradigms because it requires active participation and continuous engagement with stakeholders (especially service users, the community and frontline clinicians). Although investment and expectations of RTCs are high, the literature confirms a need to better understand the processes that RTCs use to mobilise knowledge, build workforce capacity, and co-produce research with patients and the public to ensure population impact and drive healthcare improvement.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with selected leaders and members from select RTCs in England and Australia. Convenience sampling was utilised to identify RTCs, based on their geography, accessibility and availability. Purposive sampling and a snowballing approach were employed to recruit individual participants for interviews, which were conducted face to face or via videoconferencing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflexive and inductive approach. This involved two researchers comparing codes and interrogating themes that were analysed inductively against the study aims and through meetings with the research team.ResultsA total of 41 participants, 22 from England and 19 from Australia were interviewed. Five major themes emerged, including (1) dissonant metrics, (2) different models of leadership, (3) public and patient involvement and research co-production, (4) workforce development and (5) barriers to collaboration.ConclusionsParticipants identified the need for performance measures that capture community impact. Better aligned success metrics, enhanced leadership, strategies to partner with patients and the public, enhanced workforce development and strategies to enhance collaboration were all identified as crucial for RTCs to succeed.