Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 28;17(1):33.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3.

The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

Affiliations

The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?

Kathryn Oliver et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Coproduction, a collaborative model of research that includes stakeholders in the research process, has been widely advocated as a means of facilitating research use and impact. We summarise the arguments in favour of coproduction, the different approaches to establishing coproductive work and their costs, and offer some advice as to when and how to consider coproduction.

Debate: Despite the multiplicity of reasons and incentives to coproduce, there is little consensus about what coproduction is, why we do it, what effects we are trying to achieve, or the best coproduction techniques to achieve policy, practice or population health change. Furthermore, coproduction is not free risk or cost. Tensions can arise throughout coproduced research processes between the different interests involved. We identify five types of costs associated with coproduced research affecting the research itself, the research process, professional risks for researchers and stakeholders, personal risks for researchers and stakeholders, and risks to the wider cause of scholarship. Yet, these costs are rarely referred to in the literature, which generally calls for greater inclusion of stakeholders in research processes, focusing exclusively on potential positives. There are few tools to help researchers avoid or alleviate risks to themselves and their stakeholders.

Conclusions: First, we recommend identifying specific motivations for coproduction and clarifying exactly which outcomes are required for whom for any particular piece of research. Second, we suggest selecting strategies specifically designed to enable these outcomes to be achieved, and properly evaluated. Finally, in the absence of strong evidence about the impact and process of coproduction, we advise a cautious approach to coproduction. This would involve conscious and reflective research practice, evaluation of how coproduced research practices change outcomes, and exploration of the costs and benefits of coproduction. We propose some preliminary advice to help decide when coproduction is likely to be more or less useful.

Keywords: Coproduction; evidence use; policy and practice; research ethics; stakeholder engagement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Costs of coproduction

Comment in

References

    1. Traynor R, DeCorby K, Dobbins M. Knowledge brokering in public health: a tale of two studies. Public Health. 2014;128(6):533–544. - PubMed
    1. Connelly S, Vanderhoven D. Translation across borders: exploring the use, relevance and impact of Academic Research in the Policy Process: Policy Press; 2015. p. 181–98.
    1. Lane JP, Rogers JD. Engaging national organizations for knowledge translation: comparative case studies in knowledge value mapping. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):106. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A. Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Research Notes. 2011;4:212. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cairney P. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2015.