Co-producing Research: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue on the Collaboration of Publics, Officials and Researchers in Policy and Planning

Working within the tradition of John Dewey, Harold Lasswell and Charles Lindblom, one of the key objectives of critical policy studies (CPS) is enhance democracy. Substantively this means that CPS is focused on inclusive practices of governance, in particular as they pertain to democracy, participatory practices, social justice, and general public welfare. Methodologically, CPS argues for methodological eclecticism. In moving beyond a narrow empiricist fixation, critical policy studies stress the dynamic interplay between qualitative and quantitative modes of inquiry while devoting special attention to interpretive, argumentative, and discursive approaches to studying and making policy. Practically, CPS actively strives to strengthen the relation of political and policy theory to specific practices of governance. Policy research that aims to enhance the scope, franchise and quality of democracy should live up to its own ethical principles and actively involve key stakeholders. Therefore, this Section seeks to explore the possibilities and limitations of collaborative policy research. Collaboration in human research implies that research design, data collection and theory generation take place in an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders: policy makers, citizens and officials. The rationale of collaborative research is “an aware and self-critical movement between experience and reflection which goes through several cycles as ideas, practice, and experience are systematically honed and refined (Reason, 1988, 6). Collaborative research raises several issues that are key to the place and position of professional policy analysis in the wider landscape of governance. We are thinking of the nature and role of knowledge in political decision making and policy design. Following the seminal analyses of Charles Lindblom and John Forester of distorted knowledge in policy and planning processes, we are interested in the many ways that power differentials distort knowledge and the ways that policy analysts and their publics can address such distortions fruitfully. We are also thinking of the tenuous relationship between knowledge and action, and the role that current developments in practice theory can play in strengthening the relationship between research and practice. We are also interested in the role of conflict in policy analysis and the ways that conflict can be made productive and contribute to more democratic ways of collaborative policy making and planning. We are thus looking for theoretical considerations, empirical case studies, and critical analyses that cast light on these elements of policy and planning practice. Finally, we are very much interested in concrete experiences with co-producing research with stakeholders. Collaborative research is difficult to do. The ambition to collaborate with stakeholders is no guarantee for productive relationships, the absence of power inequalities and conflict, or the sincere uptake of research findings and effective transformative changes. One aim of this Section is to collect, reflect on and draw lessons from such experiences. In this Section we therefore aim at fostering a dialogue across those areas of research where the relation between research, citizens and officials has been addressed and has raised critical questions about specific practices of governance. We therefore welcome proposals for panels that address any one of the themes mentioned above.