This blogpost by Alice Little is part of the ISJ series on co-production (autumn-winter 2025). Different post-graduate researchers and academics affiliated to the ISJ share their thoughts about doing co-production as part of their research. The blogs follow a question-answer format.

Image by David Clode | Unsplash

 
What was your first experience of co-productive research and what did you learn from it?   

My first experience of co-research was actually a yearlong project when I first started my PhD back in 2021. I was working with a group of young people who were part of a local youth club, we were exploring the needs of the local community and their experience of becoming youth researchers. At times it was chaotic, and I felt very lost, and other times it really confirmed for me why co-production is so crucial. The young people were really disillusioned with the education system and they had such a clear vision of what they wanted to achieve with the research – activities for other local young people who they felt had nothing to do.

On reflection I was naïve with my attempt to let them take the lead on the research; it was the first experience of research for all of us and at the time I was attempting to locate the research on the highest rungs of Roger Hart’s ladder (1992), where young people initiate the research, constantly looking to them to make the decisions to direct the research. This meant at times we went for weeks without concrete decisions and no progress with the research. Now, after conducting five different research projects, I feel that the model of co-research, as conceptualised by Rachel Proefke and Anna Barford (2023), which involves adults and young people collaborating by combining their respective areas of expertise, represents the most effective methodological approach. 

What are the challenges of co-productive research, and how have you approached these?  

I often find that most of the challenges are experienced before the co-research even begins. For instance, securing adequate time with gatekeepers to properly explain the participatory approach and the underpinning values of the work can be particularly challenging. This has a significant impact because the youth co-researchers might not be fully informed before we start, which can mean it then takes longer for trusting relationships to develop.  

I am sure that most participatory researchers will suggest that time constraints throughout the process always present ongoing difficulties. As a co-research team we need significant time to develop ideas, build confidence in the young people’s roles as researchers, and engage in the cycles of reflection and refinement that make co-research so valuable. Additionally, as the adult researcher, I must navigate the delicate balance of showing integrity by genuinely listening to and valuing everyone’s contributions while also being realistic about what can be achieved within the project’s scope and timeframe. This requires being transparent about limitations and making difficult decisions about which ideas can be pursued, all while ensuring that no participant feels their voice has been dismissed or devalued in the process. 

What does co-productive research allow you to do that other methods don’t? Can you illustrate this with an example?   

I love the flexibility and unpredictability of co-research. The youth co-researchers never fail to surprise me with their open minds and desire for justice. With each project, I encourage youth researchers to take a playful approach to designing the research. We often use tools such as LEGO or playdough to work through some of the more complex aspects of the research process, and from this we can begin to question what the youth researchers wish to explore further.

A question that one youth researcher posed during the research question development stage really exemplified this for me. They asked, ‘How does this make sense?’ about another group of youth researchers’ LEGO model. I almost interjected as I was unsure how they could answer such an open-ended question, but I held back and I am so glad I did. The answer that the youth researcher gave was incredibly illuminating and touched on their feelings, the culture of the school, peer relations and desires – all emerging from one simple question. I am certain that any question I might have asked about their model would not have come close to generating such rich insights. 

What one writer or concept has been most influential on your approach to co-production?  

“I’m not interested in a seat at the table, I’m interested in transforming the tables so they’re circular and inclusive” (Fine, 2022). 

The way that Michelle Fine writes about research has always felt inspiring to me, acknowledging the systems in place and the marginalisation that young people face yet holding this alongside desires for change and justice. The quote above sums up my own reasons for pursuing co-research as in a professional capacity I had experienced many instances where children and young people were dismissed, excluded and ignored about issues that were critical to their wellbeing and lives. This ethos of transformation rather than mere inclusion resonates deeply with my belief that meaningful change requires fundamentally reimagining how we engage with children and young people, as partners rather than participants in research. 

If you’d like to read more: 

Toilet Talk: Participatory research with children and young people https://www.yorksj.ac.uk/research/institute-for-social-justice/research-clusters/women-young-people-and-families/toilet-talk/ 

Green, M., Little, A., Dobson, E., Glover, O., & Patterson, J. (2023). Humanising research relationships: Democratising education-based enquiry with student researchers. Research in Education, 121(2), 217-231 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00345237231213575