Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research and practice: a systemic approach

Graham Nicholas (Corresponding Author), Jeff Foote, Kirsten Kainz, Gerald Midgley, Katrin Prager, Christina Zurbriggen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. While seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics’ (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)353-370
Number of pages18
JournalEvidence & Policy
Volume15
Issue number3
Early online date22 Jul 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2019

Fingerprint

legitimacy
dialogue
moral philosophy
discourse
heuristics
expertise
language
evidence
Values
experience
Group

Keywords

  • co-creation
  • participatory research
  • boundary critique
  • Critical Systems Heuristics
  • BOUNDARY CRITIQUE
  • Co-creation
  • SCIENCE
  • HEURISTICS
  • Participatory research
  • Boundary critique

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research and practice : a systemic approach. / Nicholas, Graham (Corresponding Author); Foote, Jeff; Kainz, Kirsten ; Midgley, Gerald; Prager, Katrin; Zurbriggen, Christina.

In: Evidence & Policy, Vol. 15, No. 3, 08.2019, p. 353-370.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nicholas, Graham ; Foote, Jeff ; Kainz, Kirsten ; Midgley, Gerald ; Prager, Katrin ; Zurbriggen, Christina. / Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research and practice : a systemic approach. In: Evidence & Policy. 2019 ; Vol. 15, No. 3. pp. 353-370.
@article{6c50782beaac4c0c865395b5a31e7f2b,
title = "Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research and practice: a systemic approach",
abstract = "The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. While seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics’ (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.",
keywords = "co-creation, participatory research, boundary critique, Critical Systems Heuristics, BOUNDARY CRITIQUE, Co-creation, SCIENCE, HEURISTICS, Participatory research, Boundary critique",
author = "Graham Nicholas and Jeff Foote and Kirsten Kainz and Gerald Midgley and Katrin Prager and Christina Zurbriggen",
note = "Acknowledgements SESYNC (Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, University of Maryland) supported the development and writing of this paper with funding from the National Science Foundation. We thank participants in the SESYNC Pursuit Group on Co-creative Capacity for their interactions, ideas and review comments, and Dr Barbara Nicholas for editorial assistance.",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1332/174426419X15578220630571",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "353--370",
journal = "Evidence & Policy",
issn = "1744-2656",
publisher = "Policy Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research and practice

T2 - a systemic approach

AU - Nicholas, Graham

AU - Foote, Jeff

AU - Kainz, Kirsten

AU - Midgley, Gerald

AU - Prager, Katrin

AU - Zurbriggen, Christina

N1 - Acknowledgements SESYNC (Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, University of Maryland) supported the development and writing of this paper with funding from the National Science Foundation. We thank participants in the SESYNC Pursuit Group on Co-creative Capacity for their interactions, ideas and review comments, and Dr Barbara Nicholas for editorial assistance.

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. While seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics’ (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.

AB - The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. While seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics’ (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.

KW - co-creation

KW - participatory research

KW - boundary critique

KW - Critical Systems Heuristics

KW - BOUNDARY CRITIQUE

KW - Co-creation

KW - SCIENCE

KW - HEURISTICS

KW - Participatory research

KW - Boundary critique

UR - https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.1332/174426419X15578220630571

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/towards-heart-soul-cocreative-research-practice-systemic-approach

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073418395&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1332/174426419X15578220630571

DO - 10.1332/174426419X15578220630571

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 353

EP - 370

JO - Evidence & Policy

JF - Evidence & Policy

SN - 1744-2656

IS - 3

ER -