IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v30y2021i3p361-369..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How far does an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and co-production in research present a threat to academic identity and autonomy? A prospective study across five European countries
[Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]

Author

Listed:
  • Annette Boaz
  • Robert Borst
  • Maarten Kok
  • Alison O’Shea

Abstract

There is a growing recognition that needs more to be done to ensure that research contributes to better health services and patient outcomes. Stakeholder engagement in research, including co-production, has been identified as a promising mechanism for improving the value, relevance and utilization of research. This article presents findings from a prospective study which explored the impact of stakeholder engagement in a 3-year European tobacco control research project. That research project aimed to engage stakeholders in the development, testing and dissemination of a return-on-investment tool across five EU countries (the Netherlands, Spain, Hungary, Germany and the UK). The prospective study comprised interviews, observations and document review. The analysis focused on the extent to which the project team recognized, conceptualized and operationalized stakeholder engagement over the course of the research project. Stakeholder engagement in the European research project was conceptualized as a key feature of pre-designated spaces within their work programme. Over the course of the project, however, the tool development work and stakeholder engagement activities decoupled. While the modelling and tool development became more secluded, stakeholder engagement activities subtly transformed from co-production, to consultation, to something more recognizable as research participation. The contribution of this article is not to argue against the potential contribution of stakeholder engagement and co-production, but to show how even well-planned engagement activities can be diverted within the existing research funding and research production systems where non-research stakeholders remain at the margins and can even be seen as a threat to academic identify and autonomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Annette Boaz & Robert Borst & Maarten Kok & Alison O’Shea, 2021. "How far does an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and co-production in research present a threat to academic identity and autonomy? A prospective study across five European countries [Systems Thin," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 361-369.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:30:y:2021:i:3:p:361-369.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvab013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angela Filipe & Alicia Renedo & Cicely Marston, 2017. "The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-6, May.
    2. Timotijevic, Lada & Barnett, Julie & Brown, Kerry & Raats, Monique M. & Shepherd, Richard, 2013. "Scientific decision-making and stakeholder consultations: The case of salt recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 79-86.
    3. Roman Kislov & John Humphreys & Gill Harvey, 2017. "How do managerial techniques evolve over time? The distortion of “facilitation” in healthcare service improvement," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(8), pages 1165-1183, September.
    4. Ostrom, Elinor, 1996. "Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1073-1087, June.
    5. Borst, Robert A.J. & Kok, Maarten Olivier & O’Shea, Alison J. & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa H. & Boaz, Annette, 2019. "Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 917-923.
    6. Stoopendaal, Annemiek & Bal, Roland, 2013. "Conferences, tablecloths and cupboards: How to understand the situatedness of quality improvements in long-term care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 78-85.
    7. Susan Roelofs & Nancy Edwards & Sarah Viehbeck & Cody Anderson, 2019. "Formative, embedded evaluation to strengthen interdisciplinary team science: Results of a 4-year, mixed methods, multi-country case study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gerlak, Andrea K. & Guido, Zack & Owen, Gigi & McGoffin, Mariana Sofia Rodriguez & Louder, Elena & Davies, Julia & Smith, Kelly Jay & Zimmer, Andy & Murveit, Anna M. & Meadow, Alison & Shrestha, Padme, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pwint Kay Khine & Jianing Mi & Raza Shahid, 2021. "A Comparative Analysis of Co-Production in Public Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    2. Borst, Robert A.J. & Wehrens, Rik & Bal, Roland & Kok, Maarten Olivier, 2022. "From sustainability to sustaining work: What do actors do to sustain knowledge translation platforms?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    3. Betsos, Alex & Valleriani, Jenna & Boyd, Jade & McNeil, Ryan, 2022. "Beyond co-production: The construction of drug checking knowledge in a Canadian supervised injection facility," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    4. Dani Arribas-Bel & Mark Green & Francisco Rowe & Alex Singleton, 2021. "Open data products-A framework for creating valuable analysis ready data," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 497-514, October.
    5. Jacob Torfing & Eva Sørensen, 2019. "Interactive Political Leadership in Theory and Practice: How Elected Politicians May Benefit from Co-Creating Public Value Outcomes," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Anthony Bennett, 1998. "Sustainable public/private partnerships for public service delivery," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 22(3), pages 193-199, August.
    7. Valentina Burksiene & Jaroslav Dvorak & Mantas Duda, 2019. "Upstream Social Marketing for Implementing Mobile Government," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, July.
    8. Brian Dill, 2010. "Public-public partnerships in Urban water provision: The case of Dar es Salaam," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 611-624.
    9. Eggers, Jorg & Laschewski, Lutz & Schleyer, Christian, 2005. "Agri-Environmental Policy: Understanding the Role of Regional Administration," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24496, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. A. Arrighetti & G. Seravalli & G. Wolleb, 2001. "Social Capital, Institutions and Collective Action Between Firms," Economics Department Working Papers 2001-EP08, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    11. Pargal, Sheoli & Gilligan, Daniel & Huq, Mainul, 2000. "Private provision of a public good - social capital and solid waste management in Dhaka, Bangladesh," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2422, The World Bank.
    12. Gaetano Martino & Giulia Giacchè & Enrica Rossetti, 2016. "Organizing the Co-Production of Health and Environmental Values in Food Production: The Constitutional Processes in the Relationships between Italian Solidarity Purchasing Groups and Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, March.
    13. Svetlana Suslova, 2016. "Collective Co-Production in Russian Schools," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 144-162.
    14. Bouquet, Emmanuelle, 2009. "State-Led Land Reform and Local Institutional Change: Land Titles, Land Markets and Tenure Security in Mexican Communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1390-1399, August.
    15. Colvin, John & Blackmore, Chris & Chimbuya, Sam & Collins, Kevin & Dent, Mark & Goss, John & Ison, Ray & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Seddaiu, Giovanna, 2014. "In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 760-771.
    16. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    17. Sophie King & Peter Kasaija, 2018. "State-movement partnership in Uganda: Co-producing an enabling environment for urban poverty reduction?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-098-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    18. Luciana Cingolani & Tim Hildebrandt, 2022. "Incentive Structures for the Adoption of Crowdsourcing in Public Policy: A Bureaucratic Politics Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Daniel Edevbaro, 1997. "Promoting Education within the Context of a Neo-Patrimonial State: The Case of Nigeria," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-1997-123, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Brinkerhoff, Derick W., 2000. "Democratic Governance and Sectoral Policy Reform: Tracing Linkages and Exploring Synergies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 601-615, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:30:y:2021:i:3:p:361-369.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.