This blogpost by Ruth Knight 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 JOONY | Unsplash |
What drew you to doing and researching co-production?
I was drawn to coproduction through my own lived experience and an underlying feeling that I wasn’t doing the kind of research I wanted to do, or being the kind of researcher I wanted to be. I knew from my own mental health experiences that the image we were developing in the field wasn’t accurate; it was in grayscale and missing all the nuanced coloured tones.
I felt increasingly uncomfortable pulling data from participants that I never met, sharing results that they never saw, and spending much of my time alone in an office. I wanted to develop relational ways of working within my community, not appear every now and then asking them to fill in a questionnaire before disappearing for another six months.
What was your first experience of co-productive research and what did you learn from it?
Following my PhD, I was fortunate enough to join the Converge Evaluation Project as a research assistant. This was my first experience of a project striving for coproduction, even if we did not always achieve it. One of the key things I learnt was the importance of curiosity. This has stayed with me – curiosity is the key. It’s easy to fall into old practices and assume that not only do you know the answers, but you also know the right questions to ask.
Coming from a place of curiosity allows us to have open, collaborative conversations, working things out together. Assumptions are natural but misleading, even around practical things like payment. We assumed that co-researchers would want to be paid in the typical sense, and budgeted for this accordingly.
However, the stressful process of registering with the university for work and the impact on income due to a punitive benefits system meant that many researchers refused payment. It was only through curiosity that we found a way forward together. This leads to another of the lessons from the project: the immovability of structures. So many of the issues around payment could have been resolved if institutions had flexible approaches.
Given that this is unlikely to change soon, it highlighted the importance of learning ways through the structures together. Finally, a word I’ve come to associate with this way of working is more. Coproduced research can take more: more time, more money, more thought, reflection, and energy. It brings more too.
What are the challenges of co-productive research, and how have you approached these?
There are many challenges of doing coproduction: the practicalities of doing things in different ways within institutions that have been doing things the traditional way for a very long time, or grappling with how we do this kind of research in the right way. One challenge I find especially frustrating is a combination of all of these; working within inflexible structures that are not set up for coproduction, but also state that it is essential for research.
This applies not only to universities but also to funders and publishers. The value of coproduction is now sufficiently acknowledged that many mandate it (in some form). Yet their processes and procedures are so inflexible that the reality of trying to implement it is incredibly difficult. This relates to coproduction taking more – often coproduced projects need longer timeframes and higher funding. However, funders are less likely to fund long, expensive projects. There is a hypocrisy here that I find deeply frustrating. There is a clash between what is purportedly valued and what is materially valued.
There are other challenges too, such as navigating power dynamics in a sensitive and compassionate way. It can be easy to replicate one narrative, especially in mental health work, as we often see the same voices represented. However, making space for other voices and developing the relationships that form the foundation of collaborations takes time. It is important that we are mindful of not replicating the same power dynamics we are trying to disrupt.
I don’t have a very good answer for how I approach these challenges. Often, especially for the more structural stuff, I get very annoyed, find someone to rant with, and then go for a long walk. Sometimes that’s enough to try again. Other times it’s emotionally taxing. This approach particularly seems to bring regular academic rejections in one form or another.
When we’re doing work that is heart-led, whether that’s because it comes from our own lived experiences or because of deep belief in it, the rejections are powerful. We are told that academics should shrug it off without reaction, but that aligns with the extractive philosophy we are trying to avoid. So, I have stopped pretending that I am made of Teflon. I focus on collaborations with others who share my values, look for smaller, concrete examples of positive impact, and use the frustration as fuel. I also try to have open conversations so that we might try to find a different way in the future.
What does co-productive research allow you to do that other methods don’t?
The difference between traditional and coproduced research was most evident to me in a project around eating disorders in non-binary people. Apparently the gap between research and practice is on average 17 years; for us it was 17 months. As a group we identified the key things that clinicians are missing and could implement to better serve the community, deciding on a zine produced in conjunction with a local artist as the best way to share the information.
The zine: ‘Does my body count?’ has a bigger impact than outputs from any other project I’ve been part of. It has been requested by more than ten NHS Trusts across the country, alongside individual clinicians, community groups, and those with living experience. This is due to a coproduced approach not just to the research itself, but also to how we share that research. I see coproduction as a sort of compass. It helps us to see where the destination is, which direction we’re heading in, and how we need to adapt to get to where we want to be.
What one writer or concept has been most influential on your approach to co-production?
One concept that has been a thread throughout this learning is a quote from Audre Lorde: “the masters tools will never dismantle the masters house.” We know that mental health research is fundamentally flawed in terms of who is included, how and which questions are asked, as well as how the answers are applied.
The tools we have been using have not worked; picking them up again would not dismantle what we have built. It would only add to the inequalities and inaccuracies that already exist. New tools are necessary. Coproduction is one of those tools, as well as a way to ask questions about which tools we will develop and adopt moving forwards.
|
Photo by Ruth Knight |
Has being involved in co-production project changed the ways you think about research? Or think about the world?
Coproduction has fundamentally changed how I think about research and the world. It has led me from a degree that taught traditional extractive practices to an understanding of relationships, power, community and a deep sense of responsibility for what came before. Psychology has a particularly murky ethical past.
Coproduction gives me the curiosity and awareness to contribute to changing this. It calls me to focus on relationships, responsibility, community, and care. In a world that sometimes feels overwhelmingly cruel, this is vital for my sense of self.
I am beginning to envisage coproduction as a horizon, not a destination. It’s something that we should be striving for, that can help guide us forwards, but not a place we arrive at. That’s okay. There will always be a way to do things a little bit better, more fairly, or with more curiosity. It’s a horizon we keep moving towards.
If you’d like to read more:
Knight, R., & Lambley, R. (2024). Using a novel autoethnographically informed research design to explore participants’ experiences of an educational arts programme at a UK university. Qualitative Methods in Psychology Bulletin, (37).
Knight, R., Demkowicz, O., Sprecher, E., Bergin, A. G., Marzetti, H., Petersen, K., … & Chatburn, E. (2025). Meeting of minds: imagining the future of child and youth mental health research from an early career perspective. BJPsych Bulletin, 1-7.
