CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 362Mental Health and Patient InvolvementCommunity Health and DevelopmentHealth Policy Implementation Science

Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production

Open access
Williams, Oli, Sarre, Sophie, Papoulias, Stan Constantina, Knowles, Sarah, Robert, Glenn, Beresford, Peter, Rose, Diana, Carr, Sarah +2 more·2020·Health Research Policy and Systems
DOI 10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0PMC PMC7204208
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Including professionals alone in such partnerships is a contested issue, largely because they are more distal in their relationship to the research outcomes than lay community members, and may therefore do little to challenge power inequalities in research.

    “Including professionals alone in such partnerships is a contested issue (O. Williams et al., 2020), largely because they are more distal in their relationship to the research outcomes than lay community members, and may therefore do little to challenge power inequalities in research (Boveda & Annamma, 2023; see Tan et al., 2024, for discussion).”

    From ‘You feel part of something bigger’: Stakeholders’ experiences of a long-term community–academic participatory research partnership (2025) · cites this paper as O. Williams et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [6]Black A. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Open Reviewer’s Report. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2019. https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3/open-peer-review. PMC6437844 30922339 · DOI
  2. [11]Graham ID Tetroe J Pearson A Turning Knowledge into Action: Practical Guidance on How to Do Integrated Knowledge Translation Research 2014 Adelaide Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
  3. [19]Beresford P Carr S Social Policy First Hand: An International Introduction to Participatory Welfare 2018 Bristol Policy Press
  4. [55]Beresford P Walden D Involving people, co-production and advocacy Reimagining Adult Social Care: Evidence Informed Practice, Evidence Review 2015 Totnes Dartington Hall Trust

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Williams, O., Sarre, S., Papoulias, S. C., Knowles, S., Robert, G., Beresford, P., Rose, D., Carr, S., Kaur, M., & Palmer, V. J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Williams, Oli
ORCID
Venue
Health Research Policy and Systems
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-05-07
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
43-43
ISSN
1478-4505 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12961-020-00558-0
PMC
PMC7204208
OpenAlex
W3023127878
Cited by
362
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health Research Policy and Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (KMRF-2016-05-017)
  • King's College London
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
co-production, participatory research, health research collaboration, researcher-practitioner collaboration, marginalised groups, partnership working
MeSH terms
Health Policy, Humans, Motivation, Research Personnel

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review