The co-productive imagination: a creative, speculative and eventful approach to co-producing research

References

• Autonomous Geographies Collective. (2010). Beyond scholar activism: Making strategic interventions inside and outside the neoliberal university. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 9(2), 245–275. https://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/868
   Google Scholar
• Banks, S., Hart, A., Pahl, K., & Ward, P. (2018). Co-producing research: A community development approach. In S. Banks, A. Hart, K. Pahl, & P. Ward (Eds.), Co-producing research: A community development approach (pp. 1–18). Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., Holland, T., Holmes, C., Lee, A., McNulty, A., Moore, N., Nayling, N., Stokoe, A., & Strachan, A. (2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2013.769618
   Google Scholar
• Batsleer, J., & Duggan, J. R. (2018). Loneliness Connects Us: Young people exploring and experiencing loneliness and friendship (Project Report‘ Loneliness Connects Us’). Manchester: MMU.
   Google Scholar
• Batsleer, J., & Duggan, J. R. (2020). Young and lonely: The social conditions of loneliness. Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beebeejaun, Y., Durose, C., Rees, J., Richardson, J., & Richardson, L. (2014). ‘Beyond text’: Exploring ethos and method in co-producing research with communities. Community Development Journal, 49(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bst008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beebeejaun, Y., Durose, C., Rees, J., Richardson, J., & Richardson, L. (2015). Public harm or public value? Towards coproduction in research with communities. Environment and Planning C, Government & Policy, 33(3), 552–565. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, D. M., & Pahl, K. (2018). Co-production: Towards a utopian approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1348581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevir, M. (2019). Inside co-production: Ruling, resistance, and practice. Social Policy & Administration, 53(2), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradbury-Jones, C., & Taylor, J. (2015). Engaging with children as co-researchers: Challenges, counter-challenges and solutions. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2013.864589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Academy. (2010). Past, present and future: The public value of the humanities and social sciences.
   Google Scholar
• British Education Research Association (BERA). (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2009). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. New York; London: W.W. Norton and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Co-op Foundation. (2018) All our emotions are important. Manchester: Co-op Foundation. https://www.coopfoundation.org.uk/youth/all-our-emotions-research/
   Google Scholar
• De St Croix. (2016). Grassroots youth work: Policy, passion and resistance in practice. Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dentith, A., Measor, L., & O’Malley, M. P. (2009). Stirring dangerous waters: Dilemmas for critical participatory research with young people. Sociology, 43(1), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508099103
   Google Scholar
• Durose, C., Beebeejaun, Y., Rees, J., & Richardson, L. (2011). Towards co-production in research with communities (Arts and Humanities Research Council Connected Communities Scoping Report). AHRC Connected Communities. https://ahrc.ukri.org/documents/project-reports-and-reviews/connected-communities/towards-co-production-in-research-with-communities/
   Google Scholar
• Enright, B., Facer, K., & Larner, W. (2016). Reframing co-production: Gender, relational academic labour and the university. In E. Jupp, J. Pykett, & F. M. Smith (Eds.), Emotional states: Sites and spaces of affective governance (pp. 36–51). Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Ersoy, A. (2017). Introduction. In A. Ersoy (Ed.), The impact of co-production: From community engagement to social justice (pp. 1–8). Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Facer, K., & Pahl, K. (2017). Introduction. In K. Facer & K. Pahl (Eds.), Valuing interdisciplinary collaborative research: Beyond impact (pp. 1–21). Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Facer, K., & Enright, B. (2016). Creating living knowledge: The connected communities programme, community university relationships and the participatory turn in the production of knowledge. University of Bristol/AHRC Connected Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Facer, K. & Pahl, K. (2016) (Eds.)Valuing Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research Beyond Impact, Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism. Is there no alternative? Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Fox, R. (2013). Resisting participation: Critiquing participatory research methodologies with young people. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(8), 986–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2013.815698
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaskill, N., & Nocek, A. J. (2014). An adventure of thought. In N. Gaskill & A. J. Nocek (Eds.), The lure of Whitehead (pp. 1–41). University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. J. (1985). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. Socialist Review, 80, 65–108.
   Google Scholar
• Hickey, G., Richards, T., & Sheehy, J. (2018). Co-production from proposal to paper. Nature, 562(7725), 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06861-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, M., Davies, B., & McDermot, M. (2019). How co-production regulates. Social & Legal Studies, 28(3), 370–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663918777803
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, W. (1996). Essays in radical empiricism. University of Nebraska Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kara, H. (2017). Identity and power in co-produced activist research. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117696033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly, P. (2001). Youth at risk: Processes of individualisation and responsibilisation in the risk society. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 22(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300120039731
   Google Scholar
• Levy, F. J. (2005). Dance movement therapy: A healing art (2nd ed.). National Dance Association: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
   Google Scholar
• Liddiard, K., Runswick-Cole, K., Goodley, D., Whitney, S., Vogelmann, E., & Watts, L. (2019). “I was excited by the idea of a project that focuses on those unasked questions” co-producing disability research with disabled young people. Children and Society, 33(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, E., & Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the act: Passages in the ecology of experience. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massumi, B. (2011) Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurrent Arts, Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massumi, B. (2011). Semblance and event: Activist philosophy and the occurrent arts. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• May, T. (2012). Friendship in an age of economics: Resisting the forces of neoliberalism. Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Nesta. (2012). People powered health co-production catalogue.
   Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pemberton, S., & Mason, J. (2009). Co-production and sure start children’s centres: Reflecting upon users’, perspectives and implications for service delivery, planning and evaluation. Social Policy and Society, 8(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746408004545
   Google Scholar
• Perry, B., & Atherton, M. (2017). Beyond critique: The value of co-production in realising just cities? Local Environment, 22(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1297389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qualter, P., Brown, S. L., Rotenberg, K. J., Vanhalst, J., Harris, R. A., Goossens, L., Bangee, M., & Munn, P. (2013). Trajectories of loneliness during childhood and adolescence: Predictors and health outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1283–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogaly, B. (2016). ‘Don’t show the play at the football ground, nobody will come’: The micro-sociality of co-produced research in an English provincial city. The Sociological Review, 64(4), 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousell, D. (2017). Mapping the data event: A posthumanist approach to art|education|research in a regional university. In L. Knight & A. Cutcher (Eds.), Arts, research, education: Connections and directions (pp. 203–220). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Shaviro, S. (2009). Without criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Souriau, E. (2015) On the Mode of Existence of the Work To-Be-Done: The Different Modes of Existence, Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• St. Pierre, E. (2019). Post qualitative inquiry in an ontology of immanence. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418772634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stengers, I. (2011). Penser avec Whitehead [Thinking with Whitehead: A free and wild creation of concepts]. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stengers, I. (2019). Putting Problematization to the test of our present. Theory, Culture & Society, 026327641984806.. OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419848061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas-Hughes, H. (2018). Ethical ‘mess’ in co-produced research: reflections from a U.K.-based case study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(2), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1364065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiffany, G. A. (2009). Community philosophy: A project report. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF).
   Google Scholar
• Truman, S. E., & Springgay, S. (2015). The primacy of movement in research-creation: New materialist approaches to art research and pedagogy. In M. Laverty & T. Lewis (Eds.), Art’s teachings, teaching’s art: Philosophical, critical, and educational musings (pp. 151–162). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Vostal, F. (2016). Accelerating academia: The changing structure of academic time. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Vromen, A., & Collin, P. (2010). Everyday youth participation? Contrasting views from Australian policymakers and young people. Young: Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 18(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/110330880901800107
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead, A. N. (1964). The concept of nature. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead, A. N. (1967). Science and the modern world. The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: Corrected edition. (D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne, Eds.). The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Youdell, D., & McGimpsey, I. (2015). Assembling, disassembling and reassembling ‘youth services’ in Austerity Britain. Critical Studies in Education, 56(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.975734
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar