Blending Research,Journalism,and Community Expertise: A Case Study of Coproduction in Research Communication

Abstract

The patterns of practice characterizing coproduction as an approach to research communication are explored through semistructured interviews with researchers (N = 6), journalists (N = 6), a community liaison (N = 1), and editorial staff (N = 2) who participated in the coproduction of podcasts. Despite various challenges encountered by participants, coproduction was a primarily positive experience that motivated the reexamination of taken-for-granted perceptions about each stakeholder’s role in research communication. Key questions are raised for future research about coproduction in research communication as well as suggestions for stakeholders planning or engaging in coproduction.

Keywords

research communication coproduction public engagement research-media interactions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albæk

(2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism, 12(3), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910392851

Allgaier

Dunwoody

Brossard

Y. Y.

Peters

H. P.

(2013). Medialized science? Neuroscientists’ reflections on their role as journalistic sources. Journalism Practice, 7(4), 413-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.802477

Amend

Capurro

Secko

D. M.

(2014). Grasping scientific news. Journalism Practice, 8(6), 789-808. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.868146

Amend

Secko

D. M.

(2012). In the face of critique: A metasynthesis of the experiences of journalists covering health and science. Science Communication, 34(2), 241-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011409952

Anfara

V. A.

Brown

K. M.

Mangione

T. L.

(2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028

Antilla

(2010). Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 240-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508094099

Bammer

(2019). Key issues in co-creation with stakeholders when research problems are complex. Evidence & Policy, 15(3), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15532579188099

Banks

Herrington

Carter

(2017). Pathways to co-impact: Action research and community organising. Educational Action Research, 25(4), 541-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1331859

Bauer

M. W.

Jensen

(2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457

10.

Beckett

Farr

Kothari

Wye

le May

. (2018). Embracing complexity and uncertainty to create impact: Exploring the processes and transformative potential of co-produced research through development of a social impact model. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1), Article 118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0375-0

11.

Besley

J. C.

Nisbet

(2011). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644-659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511418743

12.

Besley

J. C.

S. H.

Nisbet

(2012). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971-987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315

13.

Bubela

Nisbet

M. C.

Borchelt

Brunger

Critchley

Einsiedel

Geller

Gupta

Hampel

Hyde-Lay

Jandciu

E. W.

Jones

S. A.

Kolopack

Lane

Lougheed

Nerlich

Ogbogu

O’Riordan

Ouellette

. . . Caulfield

(2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514

14.

Cherney

(2015). Academic-industry collaborations and knowledge co-production in the social sciences. Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 1003-1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313492237

15.

Cooper

(2014). Knowledge mobilisation in education across Canada: A cross-case analysis of 44 research brokering organisations. Evidence & Policy, 10(1), 29-59. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413X662806

16.

Cooper

MacGregor

(2018). CITED: Exploring co-production and evidence-based podcasts as a mechanism for social change [Research report]. Cited Media Productions/Research Informing Practice, Policy and Leadership in Education, Queen’s University. http://ripplenetwork.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Projects/2_CITED_Project/FINAL%20REPORT%20CITED.pdf

17.

Davies

H. T.

Powell

A. E.

Nutley

S. M.

(2015). Mobilising knowledge to improve UK health care: Learning from other countries and other sectors—A multimethod mapping study. Health Services and Delivery Research, 3(27), 1-190. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr03270

18.

DeCuir-Gunby

Marshall

P. L.

McCulloch

A. W.

(2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10388468

19.

Dijkstra

A. M.

Roefs

M. M.

Drossaert

C. H. C.

(2015). The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands: Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship. Journal of Science Communication, 14(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.14020203

20.

Dudo

(2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845

21.

Dunwoody

Brossard

Dudo

(2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600203

22.

Flinders

Wood

Cunningham

(2016). The politics of co-production: Risks, limits and pollution. Evidence & Policy, 12(2), 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14412037949967

23.

Freebairn

Rychetnik

Atkinson

J. A.

Kelly

McDonnell

Roberts

Whittall

Redman

(2017). Knowledge mobilisation for policy development: Implementing systems approaches through participatory dynamic simulation modelling. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15, Article 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0245-1

24.

Gitomer

D. H.

Crouse

(2019). Studying the use of research evidence: A review of methods [Monograph]. William T. Grant Foundation. http://wtgrantfoundation.org/studying-the-use-of-research-evidence-a-review-of-methods

25.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine. http://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Glaser_1967.pdf

26.

Greenhalgh

Jackson

Shaw

Janamina

(2016). Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: Literature review and case study. Millbank Quarterly, 94(2), 392-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197

27.

Haas

(2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education in the news media. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 63-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560709336537

28.

Heaton

Day

Britten

(2016). Collaborative research and the co-production of knowledge for practice: An illustrative case study. Implementation Science, 11, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0383-9

29.

Leask

Hooker

King

(2010). Media coverage of health issues and how to work more effectively with journalists: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 10, Article 535. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-535

30.

Y.-Y.

Peters

H. P.

(2015). Taiwanese life scientists less “medialized” than their Western colleagues. Public Understanding of Science, 24(1), 6-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513513863

31.

MacQueen

McLellan-Lemal

Bartholow

Milstein

(2008). Team-based codebook development: Structure, process, and agreement. In Guest

MacQueen

(Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 119-135). AltaMira.

32.

Maillé

M. È.

Saint-Charles

Lucotte

(2010). The gap between scientists and journalists: The case of mercury science in Québec’s press. Public Understanding of Science, 19(1), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102690

33.

Metcalfe

(2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022

34.

Miller

C. A.

Wyborn

(2018). Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories. Environmental Science & Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016

35.

Morris

Percy-Smith

Rickinson

(2007). Practitioners and evidence: Designing research and development to influence practice. CfBT Education Trust.

36.

Nguyen

Graham

I. D.

Mrklas

K. J.

Bowen

Cargo

Estabrooks

C. A.

Kothari

Lavis

Macaulay

A. C.

Macleod

Phipps

Ramsden

V. R.

Renfrew

M. J.

Salsberg

Wallerstein

(2020). How does integrated knowledge translation (IKT) compare to other collaborative research approaches to generating and translating knowledge? Learning from experts in the field. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18, Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0539-6

37.

Nisbet

M. C.

Fahy

(2017). New models of knowledge-based journalism. In Jamieson

K. H.

Kahan

D. M.

Scheufele

D. A.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 273-282). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.30

38.

Nutley

S. M.

Walter

Davies

H. T. O.

(2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgwt1

39.

Oliver

Kothari

Mays

(2019). The dark side of co-production: Do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Research Policy and Systems, 17, Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3

40.

Ostrom

(1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X

41.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

42.

Penuel

W. R.

Allen

A.-R.

Coburn

C. E.

Farrell

(2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1-2), 182-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.988334

43.

Peters

H. P.

(2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14102-14109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212745110

44.

Peters

H. P.

Brossard

de Cheveigne

Dunwoody

Kallfass

Miller

Tsuchida

(2008). Interactions with the mass media. Science Communication, 321(5886), 204-205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157780

45.

Petersen

Heinrichs

Peters

H. P.

(2010). Mass-mediated expertise as informal policy advice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(6), 865-887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909357914

46.

Phipps

Cummings

Pepler

Craig

Cardinal

(2016). The co-produced pathway to impact describes knowledge mobilization processes. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 9(1), 31-40. http://jces.ua.edu/

47.

Pinar

Unlu

(2020). Evaluating the potential effect of the increased importance of the impact component in the Research Excellence Framework of the UK. British Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 140-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3572

48.

Powell

Davies

H. T. O.

Nutley

S. M.

(2018). Facing the challenges of research-informed knowledge mobilization: “Practising what we preach”? Public Administration, 96(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12365

49.

Preskill

Beer

(2012). Evaluating social innovation. Center for Evaluation Innovation. https://doi.org/10.22163/fteval.2012.119

50.

Rice

Henderson-Sellers

Walkerden

(2015). Overcoming a diabolical challenge: Comparing journalists’ and researchers’ views on the performance of the media as a channel of climate change information. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.824131

51.

Rickinson

(2017). Communicating research findings. In Wyse

Selwyn

Smith

Suter

L. E.

(Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research (2nd ed., pp. 973-997). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473983953.n49

52.

Russell

Greenhalgh

Kushner

(Eds.). (2015). Case study evaluation: Past, present, and future challenges. Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-786320140000015020

53.

Secko

D. M.

Amend

Friday

(2013). Four models of science journalism. Journalism Practice, 7(1), 62-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2012.691351

54.

Sherriff

S. L.

Miller

Tong

Williamson

Muthayya

Redman

Bailey

Eades

Haynes

(2019). Building trust and sharing power for co-creation in Aboriginal health research: A stakeholder interview study. Evidence & Policy, 15(3), 371-392. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15524681005401

55.

Simis

M. J.

Madden

Cacciatore

M. A.

Yeo

S. K.

(2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749

56.

Spinelli

Dann

(2019). Podcasting: The audio media revolution. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501328671

57.

Stake

R. E.

(2003). Case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 134-164). Sage.

58.

Stern

(2016). Building on success and learning from experience: An independent review of the Research Excellence Framework [Monograph]. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/87988

59.

Strauss

Corbin

J. M.

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.

60.

Tsfati

Cohen

Gunther

A. C.

(2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33(2), 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010380385

61.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478

62.

Wehrens

(2014). Beyond two communities—From research utilization and knowledge translation to co-production? Public Health, 128(6), 545-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2014.02.004

63.

Wien

(2014). Commentators on daily news or communicators of scholarly achievements? The role of researchers in Danish news media. Journalism, 15(4), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913490272

64.

Wilkinson

Gallagher

Smith

(2012). A collaborative approach to defining the usefulness of impact: Lessons from a knowledge exchange project involving academics and social work practitioners. Evidence & Policy, 8(3), 311-327. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426412X654040

65.

Yeo

S. K.

Brossard

(2017). The (changing) nature of scientist-media interactions: A cross-national analysis. In Jamieson

K. H.

Kahan

D. M.

Scheufele

D. A.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 261-272). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.29

66.

Yin

R. K.

(2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

67.

Yuan

Oshita

AbiGhannam

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

Koh

H. E.

(2017). Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 341-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789

68.

Zurbriggen

González

(2019). An experimental evaluation tool for the Public Innovation Lab of the Uruguayan government. Evidence & Policy, 15(3), 437-451. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419x15537488717501