mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research practice: a systemic approach
Inst Environm Sci & Res, Christchurch, New Zealand..
Univ Otago, Otago, New Zealand..
Univ N Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC USA. Univ Hull, Kingston Upon Hull, N Humberside, England..
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Univ Queensland Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia.;Victoria Univ Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.;Univ Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand..
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, ISSN 1744-2648, E-ISSN 1744-2656, Vol. 15, no 3, p. 353-370Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. White seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics' (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
POLICY PRESS , 2019. Vol. 15, no 3, p. 353-370
Keywords [en]
Co-creation, participatory research, boundary critique, Critical Systems Heuristics
National Category
Information Systems, Social aspects
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-45311DOI: 10.1332/174426419X15578220630571ISI: 000484784700003Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85073418395OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-45311DiVA, id: diva2:1355035
Available from: 2019-09-26 Created: 2019-09-26 Last updated: 2019-10-31Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Midgley, Gerald

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Midgley, Gerald
By organisation
Innovation and Product Realisation
In the same journal
Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice
Information Systems, Social aspects

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf