Search Results

This is the introductory chapter of the book Co-producing research: A community development approach. It introduces the co-editors and explains the genesis of the book, based on the learning from a complex community-university research project, Imagine – connecting communities through research. It outlines a community development approach to the co-production of research, described as: research undertaken collaboratively by several parties that values multiple perspectives and voices; contributes to creating and developing communities of place, interest and identity; builds collective capacity for action; and works towards social change. It offers an overview of the chapters in the book and argues for an interdisciplinary collaborative approach.

This chapter discusses the relationship between co-produced research and community development. In particular, it addresses longstanding debates about whether certain forms of co-produced research (especially participatory action research), are, in fact, indistinguishable from community development. This question is explored with reference to Imagine North East, a co-produced research project based in North East England, which was part of a larger programme of research on civic participation (Imagine – connecting communities through research). The chapter offers a critical analysis of three elements of Imagine North East: an academic-led study of community development from the 1970s to the present; starting with the national Community Development Projects in Benwell and North Shields; a series of community development projects undertaken by local community-based organisations; and the challenges and outcomes of a joint process of reflection and co-inquiry. It considers the role of co-produced research in challenging stigma, celebrating place and developing skills and community networks – all recognisable as community development processes and outcomes. It also discusses the difficult process of bringing together a disparate group of people in a co-inquiry group; the time taken to develop identities as practitioner-researchers; and the skills required to engage in a kind of ‘collaborative reflexivity’ whereby members of the group critically reflected together on the group’s role and dynamics.

This chapter talks about how to engage with co-produced research and participatory practices from a community perspective. It discusses how co-produced interdisciplinary research experiences and knowledge exchanges facilitate interaction with members of the community, with academics and with artists as a part of the Productive Margins project. The programme is seeking to remap the terrain of regulation, by involving the knowledge, passions, and creativity of citizens often considered on the margins of politics and policymaking. However, rather than examining the progress and outcomes of the research project itself, the chapter analyses the settings and process leading up to the establishment of the research project: the formation of the working group where they explored the theme of poverty; and the Research Forum where academics and community partners came together to share knowledge and interdisciplinary ways forward.

This chapter explores the challenges of fostering learning across traditional academic and non-academic boundaries when conducting participatory research in community-university partnerships. The authors were all active collaborators in the Imagine – Social programme. They focus on the role of research retreats in including a diversity of partners in this long-term research project. After introducing the key terms of ‘community of practice’ and ‘retreats’, the chapter describes the types of boundaries that were addressed and the challenges that were faced in crossing them. Next the authors present their approach to crossing these boundaries by cultivating a community of practice through these retreats. The stages of development of a community of practice (Wenger et al, 2002) are then set out and are reframed to focus on boundary issues drawing on the successive retreats as illustrations. Finally, the chapter closes by identifying the key enablers that supported the development of such a boundary-crossing community.

This introductory chapter studies the possibilities and tensions for co-produced research practices that emerge from the collision of long-established, community-oriented research practices, an increased institutional emphasis on community co-production in academia, and the ongoing critique of the key terms of these practices. Among long-established approaches to community-oriented research scholarship, Participatory Action Research (PAR) is squarely oriented to a particular vision of social justice and community defined methods and research questions. The chapter cites various case studies about what co-production looks like and some of the challenges that arise. It opens up the field and begins to illustrate in practice what the tensions and challenges of co-production are.

This chapter presents a few of the Researching Community Heritage (RCH) projects in more depth, introducing the activities of narrative, creative practice and engaged learning that were shared ways of working during the research. It reflects on how these activities engaged the participants with heritage as a creative and social process, rather than heritage as a body of immutable facts about the past. Through this attentiveness to process during the RCH project, the researchers became conscious of how researching was a means of enfranchising participants, and of revealing and contesting inequalities within and beyond the projects. The chapter then proposes an ‘action heritage’ framework for undertaking co-produced heritage research. RCH began with the seemingly straightforward aim of helping local community organisations find out more about their heritage. By the conclusion of RCH, the researchers were all aware of the radical repositioning of roles engendered by co-production.

This concluding chapter explores future directions for community heritage as research. These directions are indicated through reflections on, and for, some of those who will bring the futures of heritage into being: funders, universities, schools, and activists and communities. In the open future for funders of heritage projects and programmes, funding agencies would have built on the many successful experiments for developing co-produced and collaborative research. Research on heritage would be recognised as being at the vanguard of universities' roles in their communities, both local and global. Schools that can find the curriculum in heritage, rather than in learning facts about the past, would create space for pupils and teachers to play an active role in researching the past in partnership with community and other heritage groups. Meanwhile, activists and communities would be enabled to have a much greater role in researching and telling their own heritage stories.