Co-production: a kind revolution
Tóm tắt
Carnegie UK (CUK) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) INVOLVE held a meeting on the co-production of research, how we work together on equal terms. We brought together public contributors and individuals from organisations focused on research. We wanted to discuss how co-production could work in research, how it could be seen as business as usual, and to think through the barriers that stop us from working together, as well as the things that can help us move forward. While we agreed that the idea of working together is important, we recognised there are still many challenges to co-production being seen as a normal activity in research and the development of a ‘business case’ to persuade others is still needed. We also considered the wider civic roles that Universities are adopting as important in helping co-production become normal practice. Discussion focused on issues such as power and how it works in research. We recognised that we also need to create the right conditions for co-production, changing research culture so it becomes kinder, with a focus on the development of relationships. We also recognised the need for enough time for honest, high quality conversations between patients, public contributors and researchers that take account of how power works in research. Co-production was seen as a societal ‘good,’ helping us live well by undertaking research together that benefits the health of the public. We also identified a range of ways we could move co-production forward, recognising we are on a journey and that current societal changes brought about by Covid-19 may result in us being more radical in how we rethink the ways we want to work in research. Carnegie UK (CUK) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) INVOLVE held a meeting on the co-production of research, how we work together on equal terms. We brought together public contributors and individuals from organisations focused on research. We wanted to discuss how co-production could work in research, how it could be seen as business as usual, and to think through the barriers that stop us from working together, as well as the things that can help us move forward. While we agreed that the idea of working together is important, we recognised there are still many challenges to co-production being seen as a normal activity in research and the development of a ‘business case’ to persuade others is still needed. We also considered the wider civic roles that Universities are adopting as important in helping co-production become normal practice. Discussion focused on issues such as power and how it works in research. We recognised that we also need to create the right conditions for co-production, changing research culture so it becomes kinder, with a focus on the development of relationships. We also recognised the need for enough time for honest, high quality conversations between patients, public contributors and researchers that take account of how power works in research. Co-production was seen as a societal ‘good,’ helping us live well by undertaking research together that benefits the health of the public. We also identified a range of ways we could move co-production forward, recognising we are on a journey and that current societal changes brought about by Covid-19 may result in us being more radical in how we rethink the ways we want to work in research.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Carnegie UK Trust. From what we do to how we do it: a conversation on coproduction. 2019. https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/blog/from-what-we-do-to-how-we-do-it-a-conversation-on-coproduction/. Accessed 4 Apr 2020.
NIHR. Going the Extra Mile: Improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. The final report and recommendations to the Director General Research and Development/Chief Medical Officer Department of Health of the ‘Breaking Boundaries’ strategic review of public involvement in the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR 2015, Staniszewska et al 2018). 2015.
Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Mathews S, Monique V. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e017124. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017124.
Hickey G, Brearley S, Coldham T, Denegri S, Green G, Staniszewska S, Tembo D, Torok T, Turner K. Guidance on co-producing a research project. Southampton: INVOLVE. 2018.
INVOLVE. Co-production in action: number one. Southampton: INVOLVE. 2019.
INVOLVE. Co-production in action: number two. Southampton: INVOLVE. 2019.
Denegri S. A tale of two viruses: COVID-19 and community—engagement and involvement in a time of national crisis (inc. links) #coronavirusuk. 2020. https://simondenegri.com/2020/03/29/a-tale-of-two-viruses-covid-19-and-community-engagement-and-involvement-in-a-time-of-national-crisis-inc-links-coronavirusuk/. Accessed 23 Apr 2020.
Immonen K. The views of patients and the public should be included in policy responses to covid-19. 2020. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/30/the-views-of-patients-and-the-public-should-be-included-in-policy-responses-to-covid-19/. Accessed 23 Apr 2020.
Health Research Authority. Public involvement in a pandemic. London: HRA; 2021.
UPP Foundation Civic Universities Commission. 2019. https://upp-foundation.org/civic-university-commission/. Accessed 2 Feb 2020.
Research Excellence Framework. 2021. https://www.ref.ac.uk/publications/.
UKRI. Knowledge Exchange Framework. 2020. https://re.ukri.org/knowledge-exchange/knowledge-exchange-framework/KEF. Accessed 4 Apr 2020.
Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996.
Trust W. What researchers think about the culture they work in. London: Wellcome Trust; 2020.
Wood. The political dilemma of expertise—more than just public trust in experts. 2019. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/06/17/the-political-dilemma-of-expertise-more-than-just-public-trust-in-experts/.
Unwin J. Kindness, emotions and human relationships: the blindspot in public policy. Dunfermline: Carnegie UK Trust. 2018. https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/kindness-emotions-and-human-relationships-the-blind-spot-in-public-policy/.
Laing K. Working together to co-create knowledge: a unique co-creation tool. Newcastle: Newcastle University. 2019. https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/working-together-to-co-create-knowledge-a-unique-co-creation-tool/.
Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, McNeilly E, Goodman C, Howe A, Poland F, Staniszewska S, Kendall S, Munday D, Cowe M, Peckham S. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation—the RAPPORT study. J Health Serv Deliv Res. 2015. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr03380.
Guardian. 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/mar/21/like-an-emotional-mexican-wave-how-coronavirus-kindness-makes-the-world-seem-smaller.