This blogpost by Dr Olalekan Adekola is part of the ISJ series on co-production. Different post-graduate researchers and academics affiliated to the ISJ share their thoughts about doing co-production as part of their research. This blog follows a question-answer format.
Photo by Valeria Guarneros-Meza |
What drew you to doing and researching co-production? What was your first experience of co-productive research and what did you learn from it?
I grew up in what I would describe as a ‘hierarchical’ society, where certain groups were regarded as the custodians of knowledge and authority. Elders were generally regarded as the primary holders of knowledge, while younger people were often expected to remain silent in their presence. Similarly, scientists were viewed as unquestionable experts who were assumed to possess all the answers. As I began my research journey, I recognised how deeply this culture shaped research practice: when researchers engaged with communities, communities were expected to listen and comply.
My first real encounter with the limitations of this approach came during a project for a non-governmental organisation in north-eastern Nigeria. The project aimed to promote improved agricultural practices in response to land degradation. As researchers, we had already decided what the community needed: improved maize seedlings. We consulted agricultural experts, sourced the seedlings, and distributed them to farmers, assuming they would plant them and achieve better harvests.
When we returned a few months later, expecting improved yields, we were surprised to discover that none of the farmers had planted the seeds. Some had eaten them, while others had discarded them after hearing concerns from fellow farmers that the seeds could damage the land! This experience marked a turning point for me. It made me reflect and realise that solutions imposed on communities without their meaningful involvement are unlikely to succeed. It felt as though “we wanted to shave their heads from behind their backs”, a metaphor for imposing solutions without consent or collaboration.
The idea of co-production became even more significant during my MSc research, where I observed a clear disconnect between the priorities of policymakers, government officials, practitioners, and local communities. Each group held different values, concerns, and perspectives about the wetland area that formed the focus of my research. Although all were seeking solutions, they emphasised different aspects of the problem. I came to understand that bridging these gaps required bringing people together collaboratively to build shared understanding and co-produce solutions. Since then, co-production has been at the centre of all my research.
What are the challenges of co-productive research, and how have you approached these?
One of the key challenges of co-productive research is recognising and managing the diversity and heterogeneity within the communities involved in the co-production process. Communities are rarely homogeneous, and effective co-production requires acknowledging the different needs, interests, experiences, and power dynamics that exist both between and within groups. As a result, the process can become complex and, at times, difficult to manage. A major challenge lies in enabling different groups to communicate effectively, develop mutual understanding, and negotiate competing priorities. There is also the risk that co-production itself can become shaped by existing power relations, potentially reinforcing social inequalities if certain voices dominate while others remain unheard.
For example, in a project exploring flooding in parts of Nigeria, we intentionally brought together a diverse range of community stakeholders, including men, women, and young people. During the initial stages of the workshop, only men actively contributed, while women and youths remained largely silent due to prevailing cultural norms. We therefore worked to create a more open and inclusive participatory environment. Once women and young people began to engage, the complexity of co-producing solutions became much more apparent. Different groups experienced flooding in different ways and consequently prioritised different forms of intervention. Without careful facilitation, these differing perspectives can easily lead to debate, tension, and misunderstanding.
Another challenge I have encountered is convincing policymakers of the value of co-production. In many contexts, policymakers continue to believe that they already know the appropriate solutions, despite growing evidence demonstrating the benefits of participatory approaches. Addressing this requires time, sustained engagement, and the creation of spaces where open dialogue and mutual learning can take place. My approach has therefore been to prioritise long-term engagement and relationship-building throughout the research process.
What does co-productive research allow you to do that other methods don’t?
Co-productive research allows me to value and elevate the knowledge of underrepresented and vulnerable communities. It creates opportunities for communities to see their lived experiences and knowledge recognised as legitimate and meaningful within research and decision-making processes. Although bringing diverse groups together can sometimes create disagreement and tension, I have consistently found that participants value the opportunity to hear and understand one another’s perspectives. Co-production, therefore, enables forms of impact and mutual understanding that more traditional research approaches often cannot achieve.
An example of this comes from the flooding project in Nigeria. Community members emphasised the importance of protecting schools, policymakers prioritised public infrastructure such as sewage systems, and government officials often argued that people were unwilling to relocate despite flood risks. Through the co-production process, these groups began to understand each other’s perspectives more deeply. For instance, one policymaker acknowledged that they had never considered how cultural ties, such as burial sites located within family homes, made relocation from flood-prone areas extremely difficult for local people. They came to understand that relocation efforts by the government would also need to consider and support the movement of these important cultural and spiritual spaces. Co-production created a space where these insights could emerge and shape more grounded and socially sensitive responses.
What one writer or concept has been most influential on your approach to co-production?
One text that has strongly influenced my thinking is Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation. Although it is an older framework, I still find it highly relevant today. It highlights the different levels of participation and reminds me that people may use terms such as “participation”, “co-production”, while meaning very different things. In some cases, what is described as co-production may actually be tokenistic, with communities having little real influence over decisions. Arnstein’s framework encourages me to reflect critically on the type of participation being pursued and whose voices genuinely shape outcomes. Whenever I approach a co-production process, I therefore try to understand where on the ladder participation is actually taking place and whether communities are being meaningfully involved.
Has being involved in co-production projects changed the ways you think about research? Or think about the world?
Doing co-production research has fundamentally changed the way I think about research and knowledge. I have come to recognise that valuable knowledge exists far beyond academia and includes the experiences and insights of lay communities, practitioners, and Indigenous groups. Co-production has taught me never to underestimate any form of knowledge. It has also shown me that solutions to complex societal challenges cannot come from one group alone. Attempts to impose solutions from a single perspective often create further problems rather than resolving them. Through co-production, I have learned that meaningful solutions emerge through dialogue, collaboration, and mutual learning across different knowledge systems. It has reshaped how I understand both research and society, reinforcing the importance of humility, inclusion, and shared ownership in addressing complex challenges.
If you’d like to read more:
Adekola, O. and Grainger, A., 2023. Bottom-up and bottom-top institutional changes in environmental management in the Niger Delta. World Development Perspectives, 31, p.100491.
Adekola, O., 2007. Economic valuation and livelihood analysis of the provisioning services provided by GaMampa wetland South Africa (Masters dissertation, Wageningen University & Research).
Chan, F. and Adekola, O., 2022. As sea levels rise, coastal megacities will need more than flood barriers. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/as-sea-levels-rise-coastal-megacities-will-need-more-than-flood-barriers-176935
Everett, G., Adekola, O. and Lamond, J., 2023. Developing a blue-green infrastructure (BGI) community engagement framework template. Urban Design International, 28(3), pp.172-188.
Heinemeyer, C., Reason, M., Quatermass, N., Wood, N. and Adekola, O., 2024. Mutual learning through participatory storytelling: Creative approaches to climate adaptation education in secondary schools. Research in Education, 118(1), pp.87-107.
