Roycroft-Malone, J., Graham, I.D., Kothari, A., and McCutcheon, C. (2024) Research Coproduction: An Underused Pathway to Impact. International Journey of Health Policy and Management. 13:8461. https://www.ijhpm.com/article_4596.html.
Abstract
Knowledge translation and implementation science have made many advances in the last two decades. However, research is still not making expedient differences to practice, policy, and service delivery. It is time to evolve our approach to knowledge production and implementation. In this editorial, we advance research coproduction as a neglected pathway to impact. Our starting point is that research impact is a function of how research is done and who is involved, arguing that researchers and non-researchers have an equal voice and role to play. We outline principles of coproduction including sharing power, valuing different sources of knowledge and viewpoints, equality, open communication, inclusivity, and mutuality. We consider implications at micro, meso, and macro system levels. In calling for this shift in the way knowledge is produced and applied, we anticipate it leading to inclusive research that more rapidly translates to better, more equitable health and care for all.
This editorial is by some well-regarded scholars of knowledge translation and impact. It builds on an earlier piece by Ian Graham (co-author here) and Sarah Bowen. I loved the 2013 article, which can be summed up by “the failure to bridge the knowledge to action gap is not a failure of knowledge transfer but a failure of knowledge production”. Traditional research is not engaged with those who are affected by or benefit from the research. Co-production is one way to address this gap.
This editorial builds on that earlier article.
The authors articulate some principles of co-production: “These principles include sharing power, valuing different sources of knowledge and viewpoints equally, reciprocity and mutuality, inclusivity, open communication, and attention to practical and financial considerations.” It mentions public and patient involvement in research as an example of practicing these principles. And they introduce an important concept of scientific humility. “Given that power typically resides with researchers not knowledge users, achieving an equitable partnership requires scientific humility, and the adoption of practical project management approaches that enable power sharing in governance, roles and activities. We suggest it is researchers who have the greatest capacity and responsibility for adopting a more equitable way of working.” In my practice, I let researchers know that they are not the only expert, that they need to value the expertise of lived experience, policy makers, community organizations, etc. as different from but equivalent to their own expertise. But I haven’t thought about this as scientific humility.
That’s all good for co-produced research. But there is a teaser for co-produced impact. “Our starting point is based on a fundamental principle of research coproduction – that all have an equal voice and role to play throughout the research lifecycle, including implementation.” Co-produced impact? Now there’s something we have to think about because the authors don’t elaborate on it.
It’s only 3 pages long. You can read that during a bathroom break.
Questions for brokers:
- Scientific humility. Have you seen it? If so, what does it look like? If not, why not?
- Co-produced implementation and impact: WTF? What does this look like? Are you as jazzed at the idea as I am?
- How might a researcher share power with non-academic co-production partners?
Research Impact Canada is producing this journal club series to make evidence on KMb more accessible to knowledge brokers and to create online discussions about research on knowledge mobilization. It is designed for knowledge brokers and other people interested in knowledge mobilization.