Drawing straight lines along blurred boundaries: Qualitative research, patient and public involvement in medical research, coproduction and co-design

Louise Locock (Corresponding Author), Annette Boaz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Biomedical research policy in many countries has adopted the principle of active involvement in research. However, how different approaches to involvement such as patient and public involvement/engagement (PPIE), qualitative research, participatory research, co-design and co-production sit alongside each other, is
contentious and unclear. There has also been a subtle shift in the discourse, with the language of co-design and co-production used more widely in debates about involvement. This shift has surfaced once again debates about what counts as meaningful involvement. In this paper we seek to contribute to this debate by exploring boundaries and overlaps between them. We suggest that they share some underpinning philosophies and all are prone to be challenged on the grounds of tokenism despite avowed good intentions. We argue that these different approaches are not necessarily as distinct as is often advocated and question whether there is merit in this family of marginalised approaches working more collaboratively to give patient voices greater traction. At the same time, we recognise that this creates challenges and tensions.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEvidence & Policy
Early online date2 Aug 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2 Aug 2019

Fingerprint

coproduction
medical research
qualitative research
research policy
discourse
language

Keywords

  • patient and public involvement
  • qualitative research
  • co-production
  • co-design

Cite this

@article{7eb78473abd248d289ffc251d66b7096,
title = "Drawing straight lines along blurred boundaries: Qualitative research, patient and public involvement in medical research, coproduction and co-design",
abstract = "Biomedical research policy in many countries has adopted the principle of active involvement in research. However, how different approaches to involvement such as patient and public involvement/engagement (PPIE), qualitative research, participatory research, co-design and co-production sit alongside each other, iscontentious and unclear. There has also been a subtle shift in the discourse, with the language of co-design and co-production used more widely in debates about involvement. This shift has surfaced once again debates about what counts as meaningful involvement. In this paper we seek to contribute to this debate by exploring boundaries and overlaps between them. We suggest that they share some underpinning philosophies and all are prone to be challenged on the grounds of tokenism despite avowed good intentions. We argue that these different approaches are not necessarily as distinct as is often advocated and question whether there is merit in this family of marginalised approaches working more collaboratively to give patient voices greater traction. At the same time, we recognise that this creates challenges and tensions.",
keywords = "patient and public involvement, qualitative research, co-production, co-design",
author = "Louise Locock and Annette Boaz",
note = "Funding details: Through the ‘Co-Creative Capacity’ pursuit, this work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875. LL’s post at the University of Aberdeen is supported by the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland. Acknowledgements: Thanks to many colleagues (too numerous to name) for discussions over the years which have prompted this paper, but particularly the late Rosamund Snow and Anne-Marie Boylan for initial ideas; Pat Hoddinott, Glenn Robert and Allison Metz for commenting on previous drafts and debating our thinking with us; and our anonymous reviewers. We alone remain responsible for content.",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1332/174426419X15552999451313",
language = "English",
journal = "Evidence & Policy",
issn = "1744-2656",
publisher = "Policy Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Drawing straight lines along blurred boundaries

T2 - Qualitative research, patient and public involvement in medical research, coproduction and co-design

AU - Locock, Louise

AU - Boaz, Annette

N1 - Funding details: Through the ‘Co-Creative Capacity’ pursuit, this work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875. LL’s post at the University of Aberdeen is supported by the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland. Acknowledgements: Thanks to many colleagues (too numerous to name) for discussions over the years which have prompted this paper, but particularly the late Rosamund Snow and Anne-Marie Boylan for initial ideas; Pat Hoddinott, Glenn Robert and Allison Metz for commenting on previous drafts and debating our thinking with us; and our anonymous reviewers. We alone remain responsible for content.

PY - 2019/8/2

Y1 - 2019/8/2

N2 - Biomedical research policy in many countries has adopted the principle of active involvement in research. However, how different approaches to involvement such as patient and public involvement/engagement (PPIE), qualitative research, participatory research, co-design and co-production sit alongside each other, iscontentious and unclear. There has also been a subtle shift in the discourse, with the language of co-design and co-production used more widely in debates about involvement. This shift has surfaced once again debates about what counts as meaningful involvement. In this paper we seek to contribute to this debate by exploring boundaries and overlaps between them. We suggest that they share some underpinning philosophies and all are prone to be challenged on the grounds of tokenism despite avowed good intentions. We argue that these different approaches are not necessarily as distinct as is often advocated and question whether there is merit in this family of marginalised approaches working more collaboratively to give patient voices greater traction. At the same time, we recognise that this creates challenges and tensions.

AB - Biomedical research policy in many countries has adopted the principle of active involvement in research. However, how different approaches to involvement such as patient and public involvement/engagement (PPIE), qualitative research, participatory research, co-design and co-production sit alongside each other, iscontentious and unclear. There has also been a subtle shift in the discourse, with the language of co-design and co-production used more widely in debates about involvement. This shift has surfaced once again debates about what counts as meaningful involvement. In this paper we seek to contribute to this debate by exploring boundaries and overlaps between them. We suggest that they share some underpinning philosophies and all are prone to be challenged on the grounds of tokenism despite avowed good intentions. We argue that these different approaches are not necessarily as distinct as is often advocated and question whether there is merit in this family of marginalised approaches working more collaboratively to give patient voices greater traction. At the same time, we recognise that this creates challenges and tensions.

KW - patient and public involvement

KW - qualitative research

KW - co-production

KW - co-design

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/drawing-straight-lines-along-blurred-boundaries-qualitative-research-patient-public-involvement-medi

U2 - 10.1332/174426419X15552999451313

DO - 10.1332/174426419X15552999451313

M3 - Article

JO - Evidence & Policy

JF - Evidence & Policy

SN - 1744-2656

ER -