Coproduction is the latest and most exhaustive model of academic–practitioner collaboration to engage public administration scholarship. Coproduction centers on the production of research as an interactive process where academics and practitioners collaborate across all phases of a research project. This article contributes to the literature by presenting a critical and reflective examination of a personal journey in coproduction, with a well-known federal law enforcement agency, and offers three recommendations for the academic community to effectively tackle their own coproduction efforts. The benefits and challenges of this partnership are presented, emphasizing a less participatory form of coproduction to recognize workplace issues and solutions. The topic of coproduction is relevant in today’s literature for highlighting academic–practitioner collaboration as a tool to advance knowledge.
Points for practitioners
• Successful academic–practitioner collaborations require three elements: a “champion” in the practitioner community to advance the coproduction partnership; tenured stakeholders; and compromise amid the two communities to advance knowledge.
• A less participatory form of coproduction can be equally effective to highlight workplace issues and solutions.
• Joint problem solving with academics is essential for understanding the under-representation of women in federal law enforcement.
AckermanTH (2006) Federal Law Enforcement Careers: Profiles of 250 High-powered Positions and Surefire Tactics for Getting Hired.
Indianapolis, IN:
Jist Works.
2.
AmabileTMNascoCPMuellerJ, et al. (2001)
Academic–practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration.The Academy of Management Journal44(2): 418–431.
3.
AntonacopoulouEP (2010)
Beyond co-production: Practice-relevant scholarship as a foundation for delivering impact through powerful ideas.Public Money and Management30(4): 219–226.
4.
ArmstrongF andAlsopA (2010)
Debate: Co-production can contribute to research impact in the social sciences.Public Money and Management30(4): 208–210.
5.
BansalPBertelsSEwartT, et al. (2012)
Bridging the research–practice gap.Academy of Management Perspectives26(1): 73–92.
6.
BarrattCLThompsonRJ, andBergmanME (2015)
Women in federal law enforcement: The role of gender role orientations and sexual orientation in mentoring.Sex Roles71: 21–32.
7.
BartunekJM (2007)
Academic–practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration.The Academy of Management Journal50(6): 1323–1333.
8.
BartunekJM andRynesSL (2014)
Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic–practitioner relationships.Journal of Management40(5): 1181–1201.
9.
BoltonMJ andStolcisGB (2003)
Ties that do not bind: Musings on the specious relevance of academic research.Public Administration Review63(5): 626–630.
10.
BookerLDBontisN, andSerenkoA (2008)
The relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital research.Knowledge and Process Management15(4): 235–246.
11.
BovairdTStokerGJonesT, et al. (2016)
Activating collective co-production of public services: Influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK.International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 47–68.
BuickFBlackmanDO’DonnellM, et al. (2015)
Can enhanced performance management support public sector change? Journalof Organizational Change Management28(2): 271–289.
14.
BuickFBlackmanDO’FlynnJ, et al. (2016)
Effective practitioner–scholar relationships: Lessons from a coproduction partnership.Public Administration Review76(1): 35–47.
15.
BumgarnerJB (2006) Federal Agents: The Growth of Federal Law Enforcement in America.
Westport, CT:
Praeger.
16.
BushouseKBJacobsonSWLambrightTK, et al. (2011)
Crossing the divide: Building bridges between public administration practitioners and scholars.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21(suppl. 1): i99–i122.
17.
CepikuD (2011)
Two ships passing in the night? Practice and academia in public management.Public Money and Management31(2): 131–138.
18.
CohenDJ (2007)
The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner publications in human resource management: Reasons for the divide and concrete solutions for bridging the gap.Academy of Management Journal50(5): 1013–1019.
19.
DampDV (2008) The Book of US Government Jobs: Where They Are, What’s Available, and How to Get One.
McKees Rocks, PA:
Bookhaven Press.
20.
Garcia-SanchezPDiaz-DiazNL, andDe Saa-PerezP (2019)
Social capital and knowledge sharing in academic research teams. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1): 191–207.
21.
GlomsethRGottschalkP, andSolli-SætherH (2007)
Occupational culture as determinant of knowledge sharing and performance in police investigations.International Journal of the Sociology of Law35(2): 96–107.
22.
GoodenSTGrahamFS, andMartinKJ (2014)
Research partnerships at the state level: Bridging the academic–practitioner divide.State and Local Government Review46(3): 184–196.
23.
HartleyJ andBeningtonJ (2000)
Co-research: A new methodology for new times.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology9(4): 463–476.
24.
HockSAndersonS, andPotoskiM (2013)
Invitation phone calls increase attendance at civic meetings: Evidence from a field experiment.Public Administration Review73(2): 221–228.
25.
JamesEASlaterT, andBucknamA (2012) Action Research for Business, Nonprofit, and Public Administration: A Tool for Complex Times.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
26.
KapucuN andDemirhanC (2019) Managing collaboration in public security networks in the fight against terrorism and organized crime. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1): 154–172.
27.
KeverlineS (2003) Executive summary: In the face of challenges, women in federal law enforcement persist and excel. Paper presented at the 4th Annual WIFLE® Leadership Training Conference, Washington, DC.
28.
KieserA andLeinerL (2009)
Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable.Journal of Management Studies46(3): 516–533.
29.
KnightsD andScarbroughH (2010)
In search of relevance: Perspectives on the contribution of academic and practitioner networks.Organization Studies31(9/10): 1287–1309.
30.
LahatL (2019) Academics and practitioners: The challenge of collaboration an example from social work and social services in Israel. International Review of Administrative Sciences 85(1): 173–190.
31.
LandryRLamariM, andAmaraN (2003)
The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies.Public Administration Review63(2): 192–205.
32.
MartinS (2010)
Co-production of social research: Strategies for engaged scholarship.Public Money and Management30(4): 211–218.
33.
NCIS (Naval Criminal Investigative Service) (2017) NCIS mission. Available at: www.ncis.navy.mil (accessed 7 December 2017).
34.
NewmanJCherneyA, andHeadBW (2016)
Do policy makers use academic research? Reexamining the two communities theory of research utilization.Public Administration Review76(1): 24–32.
35.
NutleySWalterI, andDaviesTO (2003)
From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda.Evaluation9(2): 125–148.
36.
O’HarePCoaffeeJ, andHawkesworthM (2010)
Managing sensitive relations in co-produced planning research.Public Money and Management30(4): 243–250.
OrrK andBennettM (2012)
Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic–practitioner research.Public Administration Review72(4): 487–495.
40.
OspinaSM andDodgeJ (2005)
Narrative inquiry and the search for connectedness: Practitioners and academics developing public administration scholarship.Public Administration Review65(4): 409–423.
PosnerPL (2009)
The pracademic: An agenda for re-engaging practitioners and academics.Public Budgeting and Finance29(1): 12–26.
43.
RaadscheldersJC (2008)
Understanding government: Four intellectual traditions in the study of public administration.Public Administration86(4): 925–949.
44.
RadinBA (2013)
Reclaiming our past: Linking theory and practice.PS: Political Science and Politics46(1): 1–6.
45.
ReavesBA (2012) Federal law enforcement officers, 2008 (NCJ 238250). Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Department of Justice, US, June.
46.
SchulzDM (2009)
Women special agents in charge: The first generation.Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management32: 675–693.
47.
ShapiroDLKirkmanBL, andCourtneyHG (2007)
Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research.Academy of Management Journal50(2): 249–266.
48.
SiciliaMGuariniESancinoA, et al. (2016)
Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings.International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 8–27.
49.
TasdovenH andKapucuN (2013)
Personal perceptions and organizational factors influencing police discretion: Evidence from Turkish National Police (TNP).International Review of Administrative Sciences79(3): 523–543.
50.
TranfieldDDenyerDMarcosJ, et al. (2004)
Co-producing management knowledge.Management Decision42(3/4): 375–386.
Van de VenAH (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research.
London:
Oxford University Press.
53.
Van de VenAH andJohnsonPE (2006)
Knowledge for theory and practice.Academy of Management Review31(4): 802–821.
54.
Van EijkC andSteenT (2016)
Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence.International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 28–46.
55.
WIFLE® (Women in Federal Law Enforcement) (2017) WIFLE® history. Available at: www.wifle.org/about.htm (accessed 7 December 2017).
56.
YuHH (2015)
An examination of women in federal law enforcement: An exploratory analysis of the challenges they face in the work environment.Feminist Criminology10(3): 259–278.
57.
YuHH (2017)
Post-Executive Order 13583: A re-examination of occupational barriers in federal law enforcement.Women and Criminal Justice27(4): 205–218.
