Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- Notes on contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Series editors’ foreword
- Introduction
- one Enabling conditions for communities and universities to work together: a journey of university public engagement
- two Understanding impact and its enabling conditions: learning from people engaged in collaborative research
- three Emphasising mutual benefit: rethinking the impact agenda through the lens of Share Academy
- four From poverty to life chances: framing co-produced research in the Productive Margins programme
- five Methodologically sound? Participatory research at a community radio station
- six The regulatory aesthetics of co-production
- seven Participatory mapping and engagement with urban water communities
- eight Hacking into the Science Museum: young trans people disrupt the power balance of gender ‘norms’ in the museum’s ‘Who Am I?’ gallery
- nine Mapping in, on, towards Aboriginal space: trading routes and an ethics of artistic inquiry
- ten Adapting to the future: vulnerable bodies, resilient practices
- Conclusion: Reflections on contemporary debates in coproduction studies
- References
- Index
four - From poverty to life chances: framing co-produced research in the Productive Margins programme
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 April 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- Notes on contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Series editors’ foreword
- Introduction
- one Enabling conditions for communities and universities to work together: a journey of university public engagement
- two Understanding impact and its enabling conditions: learning from people engaged in collaborative research
- three Emphasising mutual benefit: rethinking the impact agenda through the lens of Share Academy
- four From poverty to life chances: framing co-produced research in the Productive Margins programme
- five Methodologically sound? Participatory research at a community radio station
- six The regulatory aesthetics of co-production
- seven Participatory mapping and engagement with urban water communities
- eight Hacking into the Science Museum: young trans people disrupt the power balance of gender ‘norms’ in the museum’s ‘Who Am I?’ gallery
- nine Mapping in, on, towards Aboriginal space: trading routes and an ethics of artistic inquiry
- ten Adapting to the future: vulnerable bodies, resilient practices
- Conclusion: Reflections on contemporary debates in coproduction studies
- References
- Index
Summary
Introduction
What is it like be a community partner in an ambitious university-led co-produced research programme? Is co-production on equal terms really possible? What is in it for us and why did we get involved in the first place? There are many articles about engagement, co-production and participatory practices written by researchers and mainly for academic audiences. Despite the ambition of many to be inclusive and to ‘represent the voices’ of community members and organisations, those accounts are rarely written by community organisations themselves. Instead they are often written on our behalf, which in itself poses questions around accessibility, opportunities and the rules that govern research processes. With this chapter, we want to make a contribution to the debate about co-production and participatory practices from a community perspective.
The ‘we’ in this article are Allan Herbert and Nathan Evans from South Riverside Community Development Centre Ltd (SRCDC), Tove Samzelius previously from Single Parent Action Network (SPAN) and Sue Cohen, a Community Co-investigator. All of us are part of the Productive Margins research initiative, a major five-year co-produced interdisciplinary research programme involving the University of Bristol, Cardiff University and nine community organisations from England and Wales. The programme is seeking to remap the terrain of regulation, by involving the knowledge, passions and creativity of citizens often considered on the margins of politics and policymaking. In doing so the programme aims to ‘move away from problematics of participation as simply ‘lay’ involvement in pre-determined regulatory structures (Newman, 2005; McDermont et al, 2009), to creatively embrace engagement as constitutive of regulation in ways that fundamentally challenge its forms’ (McDermont et al, 2012).
It was the ambition to enable ground level rather than top-down perspectives on regulating for engagement that led to SPAN and SRCDC's interest in participating in the process. We were also interested in the quest for ways of designing regulatory regimes that began from the capabilities of communities excluded from the mainstream. Both organisations value participatory research and have been engaged in anti-poverty work for many years with the aim of supporting people experiencing socioeconomic exclusion to empower themselves, while also challenging structures and regulatory frameworks that contribute to processes of marginalisation. The co-produced research ambitions of Productive Margins are, however, a new way forward for both SPAN and SRCDC.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Impact of Co-productionFrom Community Engagement to Social Justice, pp. 61 - 84Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2017