The idea of co-producing research was not so long ago a fringe interest for academics.
Originating in more radical areas of the social sciences, it’s now mainstream: used in diverse fields including medicine, climate science and AI, with major funders committing resources to support it.
Essential to this work is ongoing dialogue with external partners about how we work together. Recent consultations with our Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) partners highlight their recognition of the shared benefits of co-production, and the risks where it isn’t approached in a socially responsible way.
Professor Rachel Pain – Dean of Social Justice and Professor of Human Geography – speaks about Newcastle University’s long history of collaborating with industry, public, and voluntary sector partners: a record that primed us as a Fourth Generation University and an anchor institution in our region and beyond.
Contents:
- Demystifying co-production
- Four reasons for deeper co-production
- Four dangers of co-production - and how to mitigate them
- Citizens UK – embedding community organising in the University
- Collaboration Essentials
- Further information
Demystifying co-production
The plethora of terms around co-production can be bewildering. Co-production is one way in which Universities engage with their wider communities, as an alternative to one-way research and impact. So a museum exhibition, or a science workshop for schools, may involve valuable knowledge transfer to the public, but doesn’t always have their input.
In co-production, rather than the community being the subject or audience for research, all partners share in research design, execution or outcomes. Common modes include participatory research, community-based research, patient and public involvement (PPI) and some forms of action research - each of these terms can be quite variable in practice, and different academic, policy and activist communities have their own preferred lexicons.
What really distinguishes different practices is the depth and breadth of co-production. Levels of citizen involvement are classically conceptualised as a ladder or spectrum. But in conversations I have with research partners, the depth and breadth of co-production are most helpfully identified by questions around ownership and control, how the benefits of research are shared, and how this is operationalised. In other words, how deeply are they involved as research partners in setting questions for inquiry, collecting data, conducting analysis, developing impacts, and across how much of the lifecourse of projects?
In the model developed for Newcastle’s series of Social Justice projects, for example, VCSE partners and academics collaborate from early question definition through to co-authorship of outputs, and follow-up action is discussed and enabled by a wider group of stakeholders.
This deep co-production requires relationship and trust building, skills of deep listening, and willingness to be flexible. It takes time, as well as commitment to working through differences in goals, capacities, and professional and social resources. In hard-strapped times, is it worth the effort?
Four reasons for deeper co-production
- Better research - While it’s not appropriate for every research topic, deep co-production enhances innovation and intellectual progress.
- Deeper impacts – It also improves outcomes for our external partners. It can enhance Universities’ pivotal role in local and global development, fulfilling missions of social and environmental justice while helping them to achieve the ‘stronger contribution to economic growth’ and ‘greater civic role in their communities’ called for by the current UK government.
- More sustainable partnerships - Moving beyond isolated engagement projects to build joint expertise and establish communities of practice that can work longer term, prepares the ground for future collaborations that scale up reach and impact.
- More equitable knowledge relationships - Deep co-production helps to challenge longstanding local and global inequities in who benefits from academic research and knowledge gains, and in some cases it can progress the major task of decolonising research - see this example co-produced by Newcastle academics and Inuit community members.
Four dangers of co-production - and how to mitigate them
The flurry of attention given to co-production by Global North Universities can sometimes seem to sidestep its roots among activists in marginalised communities in the Global South. Feminist and decolonial writers such as Caroline Lenette warn of the dangers of shallow co-production, especially for smaller and less well-resourced research partners.
- Unequal benefits to partners - Critics highlight how science continues to reflect its historical ties to colonialism and capitalist extraction. In the UK, this is reflected in poor access to and benefits from co-production among working class and Black communities on the doorsteps of elite UK Universities. Avoiding practices that Ilan Kapoor has described as ‘narcissistic Samaritanism ... pretending to step down from power and privilege, even as one exercises them as master of ceremony’ means that careful relational work is needed to counter Universities’ monopoly on creating knowledge about the lives of others.
- Lacking infrastructure for co-production – Sustaining partnerships is a challenge if institutional processes don’t keep pace. At Newcastle, this infrastructure is provided by our Engagement Team, and procurement, funding, reward and recognition systems seek to enable rather than frustrate partnerships at different scales. We’ve also seen positive major shifts in the perceived value of co-production approaches within our different disciplinary and intellectual traditions.
- Lacking strategic input of partners – It’s important that external partners are actively involved in steering the everyday business of research, education and impact at Universities, to ensure we’re getting partnership work right. At Newcastle, for example, our Social Justice Advisory Group informs our engagement with the voluntary sector and advises on a range of wider issues.
- Reputation suffering - Poor practice is problematic for Universities, if we’re seen to take more from partners than we give, make promises that can’t be kept, or restrict engagement to one-off encounters. Negative experiences are often passed on, creating understandable reluctance to engage again.
Citizens UK – embedding community organising in the University
So the benefits from an institutional approach to supporting co-production are clear. John Spencer describes the move from cooperation to collaboration as partnerships mature, become long term and embedded.
One example is Newcastle University’s long-term partnership with the Tyne and Wear chapter of Citizens UK. We employ an embedded community organiser who works to support the research and education work of numerous staff and students, enhancing our research, co-delivering modules, helping with educational outreach, access and participation, and lending a valuable ear to the ground on current concerns for our immediate communities. For example, Tyne and Wear Citizens led listening sessions on the impacts of the 2024 riots and meetings with government civil servants to inform their response.
This ongoing relationship with the University allows wider collaborations that are informed by community needs, that result in immediate action and that empower participants to conduct their own research and change campaigns in future. Students are trained in community organising, developing their citizenship and leadership skills as well as opportunities for hands-on engagement with social and environmental justice issues within taught curricula.
Collaboration Essentials
Establishing these kinds of long term dialogue with our partners, and taking steps to underpin reciprocal long-term relationships, might seem a challenge in a time- and resource-poor era. But if engagement is to be the cornerstone rather than add-on to Universities’ main business, now is not the time to let progress slide.
Our new guidance on co-production - Newcastle Collaboration Essentials - aims to introduce the basics of co-production, making sure the interests of all partners are kept in mind. The guidance was co-produced by our Social Justice Advisory Group, made up of University staff and VCSE partners.
Further information
Rachel Pain is Dean of Social Justice and Professor of Human Geography at Newcastle University. She has collaborated with voluntary sector partners and communities in her research and teaching over three decades, and has authored three books on co-production, including Critically Engaging Participatory Action Research (2024) and Researching Displacement Together (2025).
You might also like
- download a collaboration booklet on Working together to co-create knowledge: A unique co-creation tool from Carnegie UK
- discover an introduction to using Participatory Action Research in social and environmental research
- find out more about our Community Engagement Toolkit, designed to support researchers and diverse communities who are developing health and care research projects and grant applications together
- uncover the five steps to Social Change through this blog: ‘What is community organising?’
- find out more about Social Justice and Social Justice Projects at Newcastle University, and discover our commitment to working towards a fair and just society.
- explore the Newcastle Collaboration Essentials resources
