Co-creation is an emerging form of collaborative governance enabling multi-source knowledge integration to tackle societal challenges. Yet, conceptualisations of the role of knowledge in co-creation remain scarce. In search of lessons on this matter, this article conducts a literature review, producing the outline of a heuristic that captures how the alignment of knowledge conditions explains the co-creation of social innovations. The proposed heuristic challenges deterministic accounts of knowledge in co-creation as a mere input/resource by shedding light on its cognitive, performative, relational, and contextual dimensions. This approach suggests further exploring network structures of knowledge circulation, social innovation pathways, and knowledge practices in co-creation processes.
AcarL.SteenT.VerschuereB. (2023). Public values? A systematic literature review into the outcomes of public service co-creation. Public Management Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2288248
2.
*AggerA.TortzenA. (2023). Co-production on the inside–public professionals negotiating interaction between municipal actors and local citizens. Local Government Studies, 49(4), 801–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2022.2081552
3.
AlaviM.LeidnerD. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
AlfordJ. (2014). The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review, 16(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806578
6.
AlvessonM.SandbergJ. (2020). The problematizing review: A counterpoint to elsbach and van knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), 1290–1304. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12582
7.
*AnastiT. (2023). Co-production in syringe service programs: Implementation in a changing organisational field. Critical Social Policy, 44(3), 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183231199667
8.
AndersenN. A. (2021). The technocratic rationality of governance - the case of the Danish employment services. Critical Policy Studies, 5(4), 425–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2020.1866629
9.
*AndersenS. C.NielsenH. S.ThomsenM. K. (2020). How to increase citizen coproduction: Replication and extension of existing research. International Public Management Journal, 23(5), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2018.1518851
10.
AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
11.
AnsellC.TorfingJ. (2021). Public governance as co-creation. A strategy for revitalizing the public sector and rejuvenating democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
AvelinoF.WittmayerJ. M.DumitrA. (2023). Power and empowerment in social innovation. In HowaldtJ.KaletkaC. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social innovation (pp. 141–147). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800373358.ch25
13.
*BainesS.BullM.AntcliffV.MartinL. (2023). Good stories get lost in bureaucracy! Cultural biases and information for co-production. Public Money and Management, 43(2), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.1909941
14.
Balanzo-GuzmanA. (2017). Theory within a policy dissecting capacity development, harvesting knowledge stances. Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 8(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17346
15.
BauchspiesW. K.CroissantJ.RestivoS. (2006). Science, technology, and society: A sociological approach. Blackwell Publishing.
16.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin.
17.
BouwenR. (2001). Developing relational practices for knowledge intensive organizational contexts. Career Development International, 6(7), 361–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006057
18.
BovairdT. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x
19.
*BovairdT.LoefflerE. (2021). Developing evidence-based co-production: A research agenda. In LoefflerE.BovairdT. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes (pp. 693–713). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
20.
BrandsenT. (2021). Vulnerable ctizens: Will co-production make a difference? In LofflerE.BovairdT. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes (pp. 527–539). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
BrandsenT.HoninghM. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465
22.
BrandsenT.SteenT.VerschuereB. (Eds.). (2018). Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services. New York: Routledge.
23.
*BrixJ.TuurnasS.MortensenN. M. (2020). Creating opportunity spaces for co-production: Professional co-producers in inter-organizational collaborations. In ThomassenA. O.JensenJ. B. (Eds.), Processual perspectives on the co-production turn in public sector organizations (pp. 157–175). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4975-9.ch009
24.
*BrownP. R.HeadB. W. (2019). Navigating tensions in co-production: A missing link in leadership for public value. Public Administration, 97(2), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12394
25.
BrugnachM.IngramH. (2012). Ambiguity: The challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environmental Science & Policy, 15(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.10.005
26.
BrysonJ.SancinoA.BeningtonJ.SørensenE. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value cocreation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192164
27.
*BurgersH.ArundelA.CasaliG. L. (2022). Effect of knowledge search depth, user co-creation and moderating factors on the outcomes of service innovations by European public sector organizations. Public Management Review, 4, 746–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2118820
28.
Cajaiba-SantanaG. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42–51. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008
29.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
30.
*ChauhanT.CroftC.SpyridonidisD. (2023). Neutralized, enhanced, tokenistic: The influence of formal employment of service-users on processes of co-production. Public Administration, 101(3), 1014–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12839
31.
*CluleyV.RadnorZ. (2020). Progressing the conceptualization of value co-creation in public service organizations. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(3), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz024
32.
* CluleyV.RadnorZ. (2021). Rethinking co-creation: the fluid and relational process of value co-creation in public service organizations. Public Money and Management, 41(7), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1719672
33.
CornipsL.VoorbergW.van MeerkerkI.KramerR. (2023). Co-production as a strategy for enhanced equal representation in public service delivery: The case of Rotterdam. Cities, 141, 104480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104480
34.
*CzischkeD. (2018). Collaborative housing and housing providers: Towards an analytical framework of multi-stakeholder collaboration in housing co-production. International Journal of Housing Policy, 18(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2017.1331593
35.
DekkerR.ContrerasJ. F.MeijerA. (2020). The living lab as a methodology for public administration research: A systematic literature review of its applications in the social sciences. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(14), 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1668410
36.
DouglasS.BerthodO.GroenleerM.NederhandJ. (2020). Pathways to collaborative performance: examining the different combinations of conditions under which collaborations are successful. Policy and Society, 39(4), 638–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1769275
37.
*DunstonR.LeeA.BoudD.BrodieP.ChiarellaM. (2009). Co-production and health system reform - From re-imagining to re-making. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00608.x
38.
DuroseC.PerryB.RichardsonL. (2021). Co-producing Research with Users and Communities. In LoefflerE.BovairdT. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes (pp. 669–691). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
EmersonK.NabatchiT.BaloghS. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
40.
European Network of Living Labs. (2015). Introducing ENoLL and its living lab community. (García RoblesHirvikoskiT.SchuurmanD.StokesL., Eds.) Retrieved 09 12, 2024, from https://enoll.org/publications/
41.
FeldmanM.KhademianA. M.IngramH.SchneiderA. (2006). Ways of knowing and inclusive management practices. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00669.x
42.
FischerF.TorgersonD.DurnováA.OrsiniM. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of critical policy studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472352
43.
*FrederiksenM.GrubbA. (2023). The politics of insufficiency: ambivalence and boundary work in the co-production of welfare services. Public Management Review, 25(3), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1978759
44.
GalegoD.MoulaertF.BransM.SantinhaG. (2022). Social innovation & governance: A scoping review. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35(2), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2021.1879630
45.
GeelsF. W. (2002). 8Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
46.
GeorgeB.AndersenL. B.HallJ. L.PandeyS. K. (2023). Writing impactful reviews to rejuvenate public administration: A framework and recommendations. Public Administration Review, 83(6), 1517–1527. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13756
47.
GesierichS. (2023). Approaches to co-creating successful public service innovations with citizens: A comparison of different governance traditions. Public Money & Management, 44(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2023.2174448
48.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325
49.
GodinB. (2012). Social Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from c. 1830 to the Present. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation. Working Paper No. 11. https://www.csiic.ca/.
50.
*HofstadH.SørensenE.TorfingJ.VedeldT. (2022). Designing and leading collaborative urban climate governance: Comparative experiences of co-creation from Copenhagen and Oslo. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(3), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1984
51.
HoppeR. (2010). From “knowledge use” towards “boundary work”: sketch of an emerging new agenda for inquiry into science-policy interaction. In inR. J.Veld’t (Ed.), Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics, and media (pp. 169–186). Berlin: Springer.
52.
HoppeR. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Bristol: Policy Press.
53.
HossainM.LeminenS.WesterlundM. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976e988. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257
54.
JakobsenM. (2013). Can government initiatives increase citizen coproduction? Results of a randomized field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 23(1), 27–54.
55.
*JakobsenM.AndersenS. C. (2013). Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12094
56.
*JalonenH.KokkolaJ.LaihonenH.KirjavainenH.KaartemoV.VähämaaM. (2021). Reaching hard-to-reach people through digital means – Citizens as initiators of co-creation in public services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34(7), 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2021-0008
57.
JasanoffS. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge. The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.
58.
*JaspersS.MigchelbrinkK. (2023). How citizen coproducers cope with public value creation conflicts: A survey experiment. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 36(3), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2022-0089
59.
*JaspersS.SteenT. (2019). Realizing public values: enhancement or obstruction? Exploring value tensions and coping strategies in the co-production of social care. Public Management Review, 21(4), 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1508608
60.
*JaspersS.SteenT. (2021). Does co-production lead to the creation of public value? Balancing the dimensions of public value creation in urban mobility planning. Administration and Society, 53(4), 619–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720957613
61.
*JaspersS.SteenT. (2022). Realizing public values in the co-production of public services: The effect of efficacy and trust on coping with public values conflicts. International Public Management Journal, 25(7), 1027–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2022.2032504
62.
*JaspersS.TuurnasS. (2023). An exploration of citizens’ professionalism in coproducing social care services. Public Administration, 101(2), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12821
63.
*JensenJ. B.ThomassenA. O. (2020). Organizing learning processes of co-production: A theoretical view. In ThomassenA. O.JensenJ. B. (Eds.), Processual perspectives on the co-production turn in public sector organizations (pp. 1–18). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4975-9.ch001
64.
*KhanZ. T.JohnsonP. A. (2021). Coproducing spatial information: Exploring government approaches and motivations at the local level. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 13(2), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v13i2.645
65.
KlijnE. H.KoppenjanJ. (2015). Governance networks in the public sector. London: Routledge.
66.
KöhlerJ.GeelsF. W.KernF.MarkardJ.OnsongoE.WieczorekA.WellsP. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
67.
KreilingL.PaunovC. (2021). Knowledge co-creation in the 21st century - An international experience-based policy report. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 115. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/23074957
68.
*LandrianiL.AgrifoglioR.MetalloC.LeporeL. (2022). The role of knowledge in water service coproduction and policy implications. Utilities Policy, 79, 101439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2022.101439
LeachW. D.WeibleC. M.VinceR. S.SiddikiS. N.CalanniJ. C. (2014). Fostering learning through collaboration: Knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 24(3), 591–622. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484830
71.
LeminenS.NyströmA.-G.WesterlundM.KortelainenM. J. (2016). The effect of network structure on radical innovation in living labs. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(6), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2012-0179
72.
*LoefflerE. (2016). Co-production of public services and outcomes. In BovairdT.LoefflerE. (Eds.), Public management and governance (3rd Edition ed., pp. 319–336). London: Routledge.
73.
LönngrenJ.van PoeckK. (2021). Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(6), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1859415
74.
*McMullinC. (2023). I’m paid to do other things: Complementary co-production tasks for professionals. Local Government Studies, 49(4), 780–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2022.2077728
75.
*MeijerA. (2011). Networked coproduction of public services in virtual communities: From a government-centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02391.x
76.
*MeijerA. (2016). Coproduction as a structural transformation of the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(6), 596–611. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2016-0001
77.
MeriluotoT. (2018). Turning experience into expertise: Technologies of the self in Finnish participatory social policy. Critical Policy Studies, 12(3), 294–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1310051
78.
MillerC. A.WybornC. (2020). Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories. Environmental Science and Policy, 113, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016
79.
MongeonP.Paul-HusA. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
80.
NabatchiT.SancinoA.SiciliaM. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
81.
NoordegraafM.DouglasS.GeuijenK.Van Der SteenM. (2019). Weaknesses of wickedness: A critical perspective on wickedness theory. Policy and Society, 38(2), 278–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1617970
82.
NorströmA. V.CvitanovicC.LöfM. F.WestS.WybornC.BalvaneraP.ÖsterblomH. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3, 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
83.
OECD. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/24132764
84.
OsborneS. P.StrokoschK. (2013). It takes two to Tango? Understanding the co-production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24(S1), S31–S47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12010
85.
*OsborneS. P.RadnorZ.StrokoschK. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment?Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
PareG.TrudelM.-C.JaanaM.KitsiouS. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
88.
*ParkS. (2020). Beyond patient-centred care: A conceptual framework of co-production mechanisms with vulnerable groups in health and social service settings. Public Management Review, 22(3), 452–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1601241
89.
ParksR. B.BakerP. C.KiserL.OakersonR.OstromE.OstromV.WilsonR. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x
90.
*PerikangasS.KostilainenH.KainulainenS. (2023). Co-production of social innovations and enabling ecosystems for social enterprises. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 37(3), 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2023-0111
PrahaladC. K.RamaswamyV. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
93.
ProvanK. G.KenisP. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229–252. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015
94.
ProvanK. G.MilwardH. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2393698
95.
RaabJ.MannakR.CambréB. (2013). Combining structure, governance, and context: A configurational approach to network effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 479–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut039
96.
RaginC. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
97.
Rodriguez-MüllerA. P.Casiano-FloresC.AlbrechtV.SteenT.CrompvoetsJ. (2021). A scoping review of empirical evidence on (Digital) public services co-creation. Administrative Science, 11(4), 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040130
98.
SchatzkiT. R.Knorr-CetinaK.von SavignyE. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
99.
SchuurmanD.BaccarneB.De MarezL.VeeckmanC.BallonP. (2016). Living Labs as open innovation systems for knowledge exchange: solutions for sustainable innovation development. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 10(2/3), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2016.074832
100.
*ScolobigA.GallagherL. (2021). Understanding, analysing and addressing conflicts in co-production. In LoefflerE.BovairdT. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes (pp. 613–636). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
101.
SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2018). Governance on a bumpy road from enfant terrible to mature paradigm. Critical Policy Studies, 12(3), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2018.1437461
102.
*SørensenE.TorfingJ. (2022). Co-creating ambitious climate change mitigation goals: The Copenhagen experience. Regulation and Governance, 16(2), 572–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12374
103.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
104.
*SteenT.TuurnasS. (2018). The roles of the professional in co-production and co-creation processes. In BrandsenT.VerschuereB.SteenT. (Eds.), Co-production and co-creation: Engaging citizens in public services. New York: Routledge.
105.
*StrokoschK.OsborneS. P. (2020). Co-experience, co-production and co-governance: An ecosystem approach to the analysis of value creation. Policy and Politics, 48(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15857337955214
106.
*StrokoschK.OsborneS. P. (2021). Co-production from a public service logic perspective. In LoefflerE.BovairdT. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes (pp. 117–131). Cham: Palgrave macmillan.
107.
*ThomsenM. K. (2017). Citizen coproduction: The influence of self-efficacy perception and knowledge of how to coproduce. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015611744
108.
*ThomsenM. K.BaekgaardM.JensenU. T. (2020). The Psychological Costs of Citizen Coproduction. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 656–673. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa001
109.
*TorfingJ.SørensenE.DečmanM. (2023). Reaping the fruits of co-creation through design experiments. Public Policy and Administration, 3, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231197802
110.
TorfingJ.SørensenE.RøiselandA. (2019). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration & Society, 51(5), 795–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057
111.
TorracoR. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 379–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606
112.
*TouatiN.MailletL. (2018). Co-creation within hybrid networks: what can be learnt from the difficulties encountered? The example of the fight against blood- and sexually-transmitted infections. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(3), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317741679
TurnbullN.HoppeR. (2019). Problematizing ‘wickedness’: A critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy and Society, 38(2), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1488796
115.
TurriniA.CristofoliD.FrosiniF.NasiG. (2010). Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 88(2), 528–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01791.x
116.
*TuurnasS. (2015). Learning to co-produce? The perspective of public service professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2015-0073
117.
TuurnasS. (2016). Looking beyond the simplistic ideals of participatory projects: Fostering effective co-production?International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13), 1077–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1178284
118.
TuurnasS.StenvallJ.RannistoP.-H.HarisaloR.HakariK. (2015). Coordinating co-production in complex network settings. European Journal of Social Work, 18(3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2014.930730
119.
van BuurenA. (2009). Knowledge for governance, governance of knowledge: Inclusive knowledge management in collaborative governance processes. International Public Management Journal, 12(2), 208–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490902868523
120.
*van DijckC.SteenT. (2023). Engaging experts by experience as co-producers: challenges and strategies. Public Management Review, 3, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2183244
121.
*van EijkC.SteenT. (2016). Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566007
122.
*VaraI.GallarD.GarcíaL.MoránN.MoraguesA. (2021). The co-production of urban food policies: Exploring the emergence of new governance spaces in three Spanish cities. Food Policy, 103, 102120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102120
123.
*VennikF. D.van de BovenkampH. M.PuttersK.GritK. J. (2016). Co-production in healthcare: Rhetoric and practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315570553
124.
VerschuereB.BrandsenT.PestoffV. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas, 23, 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8
125.
von WirthT.FuenfschillingL.FrantzeskakiN.CoenenL. (2019). Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 229–257.
126.
*VoorbergW.BekkersV.TummersL. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
127.
VoorbergW.BekkersV.TimeusK.TonuristP.TummersL. (2017). Changing public service delivery: Learning in co-creation. Policy and Society, 36(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1323711
128.
WeberE. P.KhademianA. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x
129.
*WellsteadA.HowlettM.ChakrabartyA. (2022). What is co-creation and how does it create public value?International Review of Public Administration, 27(4), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2022.2147751
130.
WolfswinkelJ. F.FurtmuellerE.WilderomC. P. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51
131.
*YangF.LiY. (2023). Solo dance or Pas de Deux? The sector stereotype matters coproduction. Public Performance and Management Review, 47(2), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2258115
