Bringing together academics, artists, practitioners and ‘community activists’, this book explores the possibilities for, and tensions of, social justice work under the contemporary drive for community-orientated ‘impact’ in the academy.
Threading a line between celebratory accounts of institutionalised community engagement, self-professed ‘radical’ scholarship for social change and critical accounts of the governmentalisation of community, the book makes an original contribution to all three fields of scholarship.
Showcasing experimental research and co-production practices taking place in the UK, Australia, Sweden and Canada and within universities, independent research organisations and internationally prestigious museums and galleries, the book considers what research impact could look like for a wide range of audiences and how universities could engage with different publics in ways that would be relevant and useful, but may not necessarily be easily measurable.
Asking hard questions of the current impact agenda, the book offers an insight into emerging routes towards co-production for social justice.
135 Evidence & Policy • vol 13 • no 1 • 135–51 • © Policy Press 2017 • #EVPOL Print ISSN 1744 2648 • Online ISSN 1744 2656 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14440619792955 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits adaptation, alteration, reproduction and distribution without further permission provided the original work is attributed. The derivative works do not need to be licensed on the same terms. Generating ‘good enough’ evidence for co-production
74 7 Who owns co-production? Sarah Carr Introduction In order to answer the question in the title, this chapter presents a brief investigation into the origins of the concept of ‘co-production’ and an exploration of how it has functioned in UK social policy rhetoric since the mid-2000s. In doing so, it traces what could be termed its ‘ownership records’, to examine how the policy concept is being, or can be, implemented in practice. Critical questions, informed by international literature on the topic, are asked about the true potential of ‘co-production
261 Evidence & Policy • vol 12 • no 2 • 261–79 • © Policy Press 2016 • #EVPOL Print ISSN 1744 2648 • Online ISSN 1744 2656 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14412037949967 The politics of co-production: risks, limits and pollution Matthew Flinders, firstname.lastname@example.org Matthew Wood, email@example.com Malaika Cunningham, firstname.lastname@example.org University of Sheffield, UK Co-production is a risky method of social inquiry. It is time-consuming, ethically complex, emotionally demanding, inherently unstable, vulnerable to external
23 2 Co-production as experimentation: the research forum as method Sue Cohen, Tim Cole, Morag McDermont and Angela Piccini Introduction Experiment NOUN 1. A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact. 1.1. A course of action tentatively adopted without being sure of the outcome. Oxford English Dictionary The experimental approach to research is characterised by an interest in learning rather than judging. To treat something as a social experiment is to [be] open to what it has to teach us, very
97 11 Co- producing virtual co- production Adapting to change Alison Allam, Scott Ballard- Ridley, Katherine Barrett, Lizzie Cain, Cristina Serrao, and Niccola Hutchinson- Pascal (authors listed alphabetically) Introduction Along with everyone else in 2020, Co- Production Collective (https:// www.coproductioncollective.co.uk/ ) had to adapt to the changes, challenges, and uncertainty that arose, and continue to develop due to the COVID- 19 pandemic. We needed to respond to these ‘unprecedented times’, keep on track with the plans leading to our launch in
This important book is a response to crises of public policy. Offering an original contribution to a growing debate, the authors argue that traditional technocratic ways of designing policy are inadequate to cope with increasingly complex challenges, and suggest co-production as a more democratic alternative. Drawing on 12 compelling international contributions from practitioners, policy makers, activists and actively engaged academics, ideas of power are used to explore how genuine democratic involvement in the policy process from those outside the elites of politics can shape society for the better. The authors present insights on why and how to generate change in policy processes, arguing for increased experimentation in policy design. The book will be a valuable resource for researchers and students in public policy, public administration, sociology and politics.
Introduction While recognised as a contested term, ‘co-production’ typically refers to contributions from service users and providers to raise the quantity and quality of public services ( Bovaird et al, 2015 ). Fiscal pressures facing public services have led to a renewed interest in this topic, with co-production becoming a core focus of public policy (Brandsen and Honingh, 2015). As a result, we have seen calls for increased volunteer engagement in health services, in social care and in education. In this article we explore a specific case of co-production
traditional research approaches and artifacts – such as long, uninspired reports or articles held behind publisher paywalls – are often insufficient to move the evidence-use needle in public service sectors ( Nutley et al, 2007 ; Boaz et al, 2019 ). Recent KMb scholarship argues that co-productive relationships between researchers and stakeholders can generate creative solutions and dynamic representations that stir action (for example, Sherriff et al, 2019 ). However, for those engaging in or considering co-production, there remains limited guidance regarding the
233 TWELVE Personalised care funding in Norway: a case of gradual co-production Karen Christensen Introduction Currently, many European welfare states are searching for ways of meeting the future’s increasing demand for long-term care services (EU, 2012). One of the central ways of meeting that demand is about changing the role of the welfare service recipient from a passive receiver of welfare state services to an active social citizen directly involved in and participating in the production of services (Johansson and Hvinden, 2007). Two key theoretical