Brett Smith, Oli Williams, Lydia Bone, the Moving Social Work Co-production Collective
{"title":"Co-production: A resource to guide co-producing research in the sport, exercise, and health sciences","authors":"Brett Smith, Oli Williams, Lydia Bone, the Moving Social Work Co-production Collective","doi":"10.1080/2159676X.2022.2052946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is growing interest in co-production in the sport, exercise, and health sciences. That includes from researchers in sport and exercise physiology, public health, sports medicine, sport sociology, sport and exercise psychology, sport management, physical education, sport coaching, leisure studies, geography, and occupational therapy. Despite the disciplinary spanning interest, academic resources in our field dedicated to the complex problem of comprehensively detailing the co-production of research and taking it forward are lacking. This paper is a modest attempt to do this. Rationales outlining the need for a resource are first presented. What is meant by co-production is then attended to. An original typology is developed to illuminate different ways co-production is defined and put to use. In the typology three differing types of co-production are described: Citizens’ Contributions to Public Services; Integrated Knowledge Translation; and Equitable and Experientially-informed Research. Why researchers co-produce research, along with various challenges involved with doing it, are then offered. It is suggested that generally university structures and academic norms tend not to facilitate co-production processes. Next, working principles to promote co-production as a means to advance a participatory turn in sport, exercise, and health research are introduced. We also highlight practical options for how to co-produce research and advance various criteria for judging the quality of it. Throughout it is highlighted why qualitative researchers are well prepared to do high quality co-produced research and should be considered important collaborators for researchers without qualitative expertise intending to co-produce research. The paper closes with future directions.","PeriodicalId":48542,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health","volume":"15 1","pages":"159 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"46","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2022.2052946","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 46
Abstract
ABSTRACT There is growing interest in co-production in the sport, exercise, and health sciences. That includes from researchers in sport and exercise physiology, public health, sports medicine, sport sociology, sport and exercise psychology, sport management, physical education, sport coaching, leisure studies, geography, and occupational therapy. Despite the disciplinary spanning interest, academic resources in our field dedicated to the complex problem of comprehensively detailing the co-production of research and taking it forward are lacking. This paper is a modest attempt to do this. Rationales outlining the need for a resource are first presented. What is meant by co-production is then attended to. An original typology is developed to illuminate different ways co-production is defined and put to use. In the typology three differing types of co-production are described: Citizens’ Contributions to Public Services; Integrated Knowledge Translation; and Equitable and Experientially-informed Research. Why researchers co-produce research, along with various challenges involved with doing it, are then offered. It is suggested that generally university structures and academic norms tend not to facilitate co-production processes. Next, working principles to promote co-production as a means to advance a participatory turn in sport, exercise, and health research are introduced. We also highlight practical options for how to co-produce research and advance various criteria for judging the quality of it. Throughout it is highlighted why qualitative researchers are well prepared to do high quality co-produced research and should be considered important collaborators for researchers without qualitative expertise intending to co-produce research. The paper closes with future directions.