Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate coproduction behavior in networking alumni communities via the progress from platform belongingness, knowledge sharing and citizenship behavior. Alumni networking communities have emerged as valuable assets for conserving institutional resources, supporting members and contributing new resources for alumni-institutional professional development. However, the previous literature has not yet captured the explicit processes by which these contributions are made.

Data from 711 respondents selected from an alumni collaboration network were subjected to structural equation modeling analysis.

The study explored resource conservation (belongingness) as the primary relational mechanism for alumni to share their instrumental resources (knowledge sharing), supporting resources (citizenship behavior) and competent resources (coproduction behavior). Knowledge sharing and citizenship behavior act as intermediate agents to trigger coproduction behavior. The authors show how subjective norm, group norm and trust is regarded as a tool to reduce bonding intrusiveness (i.e. the intrusive side-effects of a bond) and moderate the indirect effect of belongingness on coproduction and the direct effect of citizenship on coproduction.

By applying attachment theory, conservation of resources theory and digital platform networking perspectives, this study describes major implications for designing inspiring and compatible community platforms.

Guidance is provided for improving sustainable alumni communities through citizenship-sharing and coproduction behavior.

Online alumni communities are regarded as resource conservators, which can result in valuable coproduction, via the sharing of knowledge, expertise and skillsets to create profit for a range of institutions and industries.

Alumni networking platforms encourage alumni cohesiveness, stimulate knowledge exchange and improve professionalism.

Sexual health is insufficiently addressed in health care and higher education, which can lead to lower quality of life and negative health outcomes. To improve the situation, it is necessary to address both the needs of patients and professionals and collaboratively engage in finding sustainable solutions. The purpose of this paper is to explore the feasibility and value of large-scale digital coproduction in higher education.

A study of a project that developed seven interprofessional, digital master-level courses covering different topics related to sexual health. The project was performed through digital coproduction in higher education, with over 100 persons with various backgrounds working together online in designing content and novel digital learning activities.

Large-scale digital coproduction in higher education is feasible and valuable, but the process demands sensitive leadership, understanding of coproduction processes and willingness to learn from each other. To meet the demands from practice it is important to understand the complexity, ever-changing and unpredictable working life changes which, in turn, demands engagement in continuous learning, training activities and the need for formal education.

The study provides learning of the feasibility of the value of large-scale digital coproduction in higher education, which is a novel way of working in higher education.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the quantitative measurement tools used in fields of study related to coproduction, as an approach to mobilizing knowledge, in order to inform the measurement of impact.

An overview methodology was used to synthesize the findings from prior instrument reviews, focusing on the contexts in which measurement tools have been used, the main constructs and content themes of the tools, and the extent to which the tools display promising psychometric and pragmatic qualities.

Eight identified reviews described 441 instruments and measures designed to capture various aspects of knowledge being mobilized among diverse research stakeholders, with 291 (66%) exhibiting relevance for impact measurement.

Future studies that measure aspects of coproduction need to engage more openly and critically with psychometric and pragmatic considerations when designing, implementing and reporting on measurement tools.

Twenty-seven tools with strong measurement properties for evidencing impact in coproduction were identified, offering a starting point for scholars and practitioners engaging in partnered approaches to research, such as in professional learning networks.

Current quantitative approaches to measuring the impacts of coproduction are failing to do so in ways that are meaningful, consistent, rigorous, reproducible and equitable. This paper provides a first step to addressing this issue by exploring promising measurement tools from fields of study with theoretical similarities to coproduction.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the methodological logic of coproductive research approaches like action research, collaborative research, interactive research and participatory research in a way that can clarify its effectiveness and scientific qualities in high quality knowledge production, and show the way that it can be integrated with institutionalized textbook science.

The paper clarifies the character of coproduction as research methodology concept, the logic of coproductive research approaches, and its characteristics compared to quantitative and qualitative methodology. A model for characterizing research approaches from leading textbook social science is developed to specify the character of coproductive research approaches and support integration in mainstream research methodology discussions.

The paper develops a research methodology framework for coproductive logic and approaches to research, to support the integration of this type of approaches in mainstream research methodology.

The developed model of coproductive research approaches is not empirically described. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test and further develop the model in relation to cases and designs of research projects.

The paper is helpful for guiding the design of coproductive research in practice, i.e., in research project development or in research methodology education.

The development of coproductive research approaches supports making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions. It also is enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes, thus the democratization of research and knowledge production.

The paper contributes to integration of the family of coproductive approaches in mainstream research methodology discussion through the development and elaboration of a framework for organizing the description and development of coproductive research approaches. The aim is that the framework is valuable for both academics, practitioners and students in designing coproductive research projects.

Background: historical assumptions and knowledge about personality disorders (PDs) have inhibited efforts to improve PD services. Public and patient involvement in research has become a requirement of UK health services research. The potential for people with personal experiences of PD to ‘coproduce’ research knowledge as a means to transform PD services is largely unexplored.Objectives: to consider the extent to which research teams on two recent projects have ‘coproduced’ knowledge about PD, and the potential impact of coproduction on research findings and service delivery.Setting: two qualitative research projects were conducted by teams comprising conventional academic, clinical, service user and carer researchers. Reflective writing by researchers was analysed thematically to explore research objectives.Findings: researchers reported that their high expectations of research coproduction were mostly met, that findings would have been different without involvement of service user and carer researchers, and that the research would have wider credibility because of their involvement.Conclusions: coproduction is characterised by enabling perspectives from outside the conventional clinical‐academic health research team to inform the research decision‐making process, and by self‐conscious reflection to make explicit how findings are shaped as a result. The potential to improve PD services by coproducing knowledge was demonstrated.

A range of one-to-one, group and online approaches to peer support are increasingly complementing formal mental health service delivery. Evidence is emerging of the potential benefits and challenges of peer support for individuals, communities and organisations. There is more limited evidence describing peer-led peer support networks. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In an evaluation of Prosper, a peer-led, peer support network and social movement, members of the network played a participatory role in the design, conduct and interpretative work of the evaluation. An online survey, one-to-one interviews and group discussions were used.

The evaluation describes an evolving network with planning and development meetings constituting core activity for many members alongside a monthly training programme supporting people to set up their own activities. There were strong shared values, and consensus that Prosper could strengthen social networks, improve individual well-being and impact on the way people used mental health services. Challenges were identified around feelings of uncertainty and vulnerability in relation to involvement in the network.

The participatory nature of the evaluation adds value to the learning offered. This was a descriptive evaluation; potential is indicated for the more formal modelling and testing of peer-led network and social movement initiatives.

Clarity is needed on the relationship of the network to statutory mental health services – specifically around taking on a “service provider” role – and on the advantages and challenges of a “hybrid” organisational model that combines traditional, hierarchical and new distributed forms of leadership and structure.

Prosper demonstrated potential to create a sense of common culture based on sharing lived experience and mutual peer support, providing an alternative to the traditional culture of mental health services.

This paper offers wider learning derived from evaluation of a highly original initiative in peer leadership, network structure and interface with statutory mental health services.

This paper aims to explore the challenges of coproduction at individual, team, service, organisational and system level and critically describes the work of one organization to describe ways in which coproduction can be facilitated.

This is a case study of the approaches developed (coproduced) within an independent not-for-profit mental health consultancy organization to facilitate coproduction at every level.

Although much is published about coproduction in research, there is relatively little guidance relating to coproduction in practice. This paper describes the meaning, purpose and impact of coproduction at different levels and gives examples of how it can be achieved. The learning from his work is drawn together to present a series of findings with recommendations including: inclusion, managing power difference, accommodating difference, generating new ways forward rather than debating and selecting existing options.

The literature on coproduction in practice is replete with guidance rather than examples of good practice. It is also apparent that the ambition for coproduction has progressed rapidly from coproduction between service providers and people using services to coproduction with all relevant stakeholders. This paper provides contemporary examples of coproduction in different forms and at different levels with attention to ways of overcoming challenges.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a recent experiment in research coproduction in an evaluation of service planning at a London Mental Health NHS Trust. The paper aims to consider whether members of the research team who have themselves been users of mental health services are able to contribute to the research process as “experts by experience”, or if their experiential knowledge is “colonized” within the academic research team.

A qualitative, comparative case study approach was adopted, using structured observations and semi‐structured interviews. Researchers' reflective accounts and a reflective focus group were employed to explore the process of coproduction.

The paper concludes that, far from “colonising” expertise by experience, the experiment builds local capacity in research coproduction and usefully informs a service planning process that reflects the priorities and concerns of a range of stakeholders.

The paper describes a small, local experiment in research coproduction and so findings are limited in their scope. However, the study demonstrates an effective methodological approach to evaluating, empirically, the impact of coproduction on the health services research (HSR) process.

The paper demonstrates the potential for repeated exercises in coproduction to build capacity in collaborative approaches to both HSR and service planning.

The involvement of experts by experience is increasingly a policy requirement in the domains of both health service planning and HSR in the UK. There are very few empirical studies that evaluate the impact of that coproduction.