. 2018 Dec 11;16:118. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0375-0

Table 3.

Paradigmatic implications of research co-production

Processes	Impacts
1. Emergence of new ideas, methods and relationships	• Proliferation of new ideas • Knowledge greater than the sum of its parts • Recognition and shift towards new research methods to facilitate co-production/integrated knowledge translation • Greater appreciation of blending techniques within academic institutions • Stronger links and understanding developed between multiple practice and academic disciplines • More diverse, enduring and representative engagement in the processes and outcomes of research, e.g. practitioners and service users being named on or leading further research proposals • Co-design of questions and co-analysis of data aided the transferability and validity of results • Practitioners and patients explicitly recognised for participating in research and contributing to the development of its outputs
2. Transformative synergies as a result of complex sequences of interventions and interactions	• Questions the nature of knowledge • Acknowledges, harnesses and perpetuates the democratisation of knowledge • Challenges the hegemony of reductionist approaches to healthcare research • Enables research that is dynamic, agile and responsive to local contexts and changing circumstances • Embraces complexity, dissonance and uncertainty • Creates rich contextualised evidence from various sources to foster stakeholders’ contextual adroitness and furnish their mindlines with other perspectives • Harnesses the creativity, expertise, experience and energy of people who provide and use services – this can be politically and practically productive • Permits redesign and regulation of services to reflect the needs of people who use and work within them • Places human contextual and emotive issues within research; engages with research users’, generators’ and policy-makers’ emotive and rational selves • Facilitates an ideological shift towards justice and equality rather than hierarchy and power imbalance in the process and outcomes of research • We also discerned the potential for co-production to create a virtuous cycle; a recurring cycle of events, in which learning, innovation and improvement are embedded and continuous, and each cycle increases the benefit of the ones before

Processes

Impacts

1. Emergence of new ideas, methods and relationships

• Proliferation of new ideas
• Knowledge greater than the sum of its parts
• Recognition and shift towards new research methods to facilitate co-production/integrated knowledge translation
• Greater appreciation of blending techniques within academic institutions
• Stronger links and understanding developed between multiple practice and academic disciplines
• More diverse, enduring and representative engagement in the processes and outcomes of research, e.g. practitioners and service users being named on or leading further research proposals
• Co-design of questions and co-analysis of data aided the transferability and validity of results
• Practitioners and patients explicitly recognised for participating in research and contributing to the development of its outputs

2. Transformative synergies as a result of complex sequences of interventions and interactions

• Questions the nature of knowledge
• Acknowledges, harnesses and perpetuates the democratisation of knowledge
• Challenges the hegemony of reductionist approaches to healthcare research
• Enables research that is dynamic, agile and responsive to local contexts and changing circumstances
• Embraces complexity, dissonance and uncertainty
• Creates rich contextualised evidence from various sources to foster stakeholders’ contextual adroitness and furnish their mindlines with other perspectives
• Harnesses the creativity, expertise, experience and energy of people who provide and use services – this can be politically and practically productive
• Permits redesign and regulation of services to reflect the needs of people who use and work within them
• Places human contextual and emotive issues within research; engages with research users’, generators’ and policy-makers’ emotive and rational selves
• Facilitates an ideological shift towards justice and equality rather than hierarchy and power imbalance in the process and outcomes of research
• We also discerned the potential for co-production to create a virtuous cycle; a recurring cycle of events, in which learning, innovation and improvement are embedded and continuous, and each cycle increases the benefit of the ones before