Cargando…

Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project

INTRODUCTION: Numerous frameworks for defining and supporting co‐created research exist. The practicalities of designing and conducting co‐created research are clearly important, yet the utility of these frameworks and their operationalisation within local contexts and involving a diversity of stake...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fitzpatrick, Scott J., Lamb, Heather, Stewart, Erin, Gulliver, Amelia, Morse, Alyssa R., Giugni, Melanie, Banfield, Michelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10349236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37254844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13785
_version_ 1785073861488803840
author Fitzpatrick, Scott J.
Lamb, Heather
Stewart, Erin
Gulliver, Amelia
Morse, Alyssa R.
Giugni, Melanie
Banfield, Michelle
author_facet Fitzpatrick, Scott J.
Lamb, Heather
Stewart, Erin
Gulliver, Amelia
Morse, Alyssa R.
Giugni, Melanie
Banfield, Michelle
author_sort Fitzpatrick, Scott J.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Numerous frameworks for defining and supporting co‐created research exist. The practicalities of designing and conducting co‐created research are clearly important, yet the utility of these frameworks and their operationalisation within local contexts and involving a diversity of stakeholders and interests are currently not well‐researched. METHODS: Using an instrumental case study approach, we examined the utility of a published systematic framework designed to improve clarity about co‐creation as a concept and approach. The framework is explored based on the first two processes that correspond to our own work to date: co‐ideation and co‐design. RESULTS: Our study showed that diverse stakeholders bring challenges regarding research priorities, methods, language and the distribution of power within co‐creation processes. Co‐creation activities were incremental, adaptable, responsive and made best use of established relationships, structures and collective leadership to meet the competing demands of funders and human research ethics committees, while ensuring the meaningful participation of multiple stakeholders. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the iterative, fluid and deeply relational nature of co‐created research. Rather than seeking to categorise these processes, we argue that the social relations of research production that provide the structures within which all co‐created knowledge is generated are more important drivers of effective knowledge mobilisation and implementation. Thus, close attention to these social relations is needed in co‐created research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis, including academic researchers, service and peer workers, carers and advocates were involved in the co‐ideation and co‐design of this research. All authors identify as people with lived experience, from both academic and nonresearch backgrounds.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10349236
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103492362023-07-16 Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project Fitzpatrick, Scott J. Lamb, Heather Stewart, Erin Gulliver, Amelia Morse, Alyssa R. Giugni, Melanie Banfield, Michelle Health Expect Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Numerous frameworks for defining and supporting co‐created research exist. The practicalities of designing and conducting co‐created research are clearly important, yet the utility of these frameworks and their operationalisation within local contexts and involving a diversity of stakeholders and interests are currently not well‐researched. METHODS: Using an instrumental case study approach, we examined the utility of a published systematic framework designed to improve clarity about co‐creation as a concept and approach. The framework is explored based on the first two processes that correspond to our own work to date: co‐ideation and co‐design. RESULTS: Our study showed that diverse stakeholders bring challenges regarding research priorities, methods, language and the distribution of power within co‐creation processes. Co‐creation activities were incremental, adaptable, responsive and made best use of established relationships, structures and collective leadership to meet the competing demands of funders and human research ethics committees, while ensuring the meaningful participation of multiple stakeholders. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the iterative, fluid and deeply relational nature of co‐created research. Rather than seeking to categorise these processes, we argue that the social relations of research production that provide the structures within which all co‐created knowledge is generated are more important drivers of effective knowledge mobilisation and implementation. Thus, close attention to these social relations is needed in co‐created research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with lived experience of emotional distress and/or suicidal crisis, including academic researchers, service and peer workers, carers and advocates were involved in the co‐ideation and co‐design of this research. All authors identify as people with lived experience, from both academic and nonresearch backgrounds. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10349236/ /pubmed/37254844 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13785 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Fitzpatrick, Scott J.
Lamb, Heather
Stewart, Erin
Gulliver, Amelia
Morse, Alyssa R.
Giugni, Melanie
Banfield, Michelle
Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project
title Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project
title_full Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project
title_fullStr Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project
title_full_unstemmed Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project
title_short Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project
title_sort co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: reflections from the ‘co‐creating safe spaces’ project
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10349236/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37254844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13785
work_keys_str_mv AT fitzpatrickscottj coideationandcodesignincocreationresearchreflectionsfromthecocreatingsafespacesproject
AT lambheather coideationandcodesignincocreationresearchreflectionsfromthecocreatingsafespacesproject
AT stewarterin coideationandcodesignincocreationresearchreflectionsfromthecocreatingsafespacesproject
AT gulliveramelia coideationandcodesignincocreationresearchreflectionsfromthecocreatingsafespacesproject
AT morsealyssar coideationandcodesignincocreationresearchreflectionsfromthecocreatingsafespacesproject
AT giugnimelanie coideationandcodesignincocreationresearchreflectionsfromthecocreatingsafespacesproject
AT banfieldmichelle coideationandcodesignincocreationresearchreflectionsfromthecocreatingsafespacesproject