Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production
Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0
复制
发表时间：
2020-05-07
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Palmer, Victoria J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Williams, Oli;Sarre, Sophie;Palmer, Victoria J.
本文是对奥利弗等人的回应。共同生产的阴暗面：健康研究的成本是否超过收益？最近发表在健康研究政策和系统（2019年，17：33）。最初的评论提出了一些关于如何以及何时共同进行健康研究的重要问题，包括强调参与者的各种专业费用。然而，我们在他们的调查中发现了四个相关的限制，如下：（1）采用了一个有问题的合作生产的定义，没有承认区分合作生产与更广泛的合作的关键特征;（2）对合作生产研究的技术官僚理论的强烈关注和对民主理论的相对忽视;（3）将研究人员和从业人员之间合作的合理关切转移到与患者、服务使用者和边缘化公民的工作中;以及（4）将不良做法作为合作制作的固有缺陷或实际上的“阴暗面”来呈现，而没有考虑到学术研究中促进甚至促进这种不当行为的背景因素的腐败影响。评注的局限性可被视为反映了当代对“共同制作”一词的更广泛使用。我们将这种现象描述为“cobiquity”-参与式研究实践的明显胃口，并越来越重视合作伙伴关系的工作，结合相关的出现过多的“合作”的话，促进不同的合作传统的含义和做法的融合。这种现象通常会导致对“共同生产”一词的滥用。我们的主要动机是解决这种不精确性及其对与边缘化和弱势群体合作生产的不利影响。我们的结论是，奥利弗等人太接近“问题”的“合作生产”只看到黑暗的一面，而不是什么是投下的阴影。我们警告这种狭隘的观点，并主张更严格地审查结构性因素，这在很大程度上解释了学术界未能适应和促进共同生产的研究的平等主义和功利主义的潜力。
This article is a response to Oliver et al.'s Commentary 'The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?' recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed 'dark side', of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary's limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term 'co-production' more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as 'cobiquity' - an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of 'co' words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term 'co-production'. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to 'the problem' of 'co-production' seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia's failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.