AlbrechtsL (2013) Reframing strategic spatial framing by using a coproduction perspective. Planning theory12(1): 46–63.
2.
AllanALambertRYapC (2018) Co-learning the city: Towards a pedagogy of poly-learning. In: BhanB.SrinivaswS.WatsonV. (eds). The Routledge Companion to Planning in the Global South. Milton Park and New York: Routledge, 355–367.
3.
BovairdTLoefflerE (2012) From Engagement to Co-Production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizationsi, 23. 10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6.
4.
Castan BrodoVOrtizCLipietzBOsuteyeEet al. (2022) Co-production outcomes for urban equality: Learning from different trajectories of citizen’s involvement in urban change, Current research in environmental sustainability,4.
5.
DebouletAGomesPUrvoyP (2025) Co-produire la ville par le bas: perspectives franco-brésiliennes Introduction- Special Issue. Participations24.
CossartPTalpinJ (2015) Lutte Urbaine: Participation et démocratie d’interpellation à l’Alma-Gare. Paris: Editions du Croquant.
8.
De Sousa SantosB (2018) The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South. Durban & London: Duke University Press.
9.
Environment and Urbanization (2018) Special issue on Coproduction30(2).
10.
ForesterJ (2009) Planning in the face of power, Berkeley, University of California Press.
11.
FraserN (1998) Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, participation. Discussion papers, Reseasrch Unit: Organization and Employment. FS I. WZB Berlin Social Science Center, 98-108.
12.
GaluszkaJ (2019) What makes urban governance co-productive? Contradictions in the current debate on co-production, Planning theory, 18 (1): 143-160.
13.
GodrieBDos SantosM (2017) Présentation: inégalités sociales, production des savoirs et de l’ignorance, Sociologie et sociétés, 49 (1): 7-31.
14.
HarawayD (1988) Situated knowledge: the science question in feminism and the priviledge of partial perspective, Feminist studies, 14 (3): 575-599.
15.
Havard dit DuclosEUrvoyP (2022) Coécrire l’histoire locale face à la démolition des quartiers populaires, de Plaisir (France) à Belo Horizonte (Brésil), Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère[En ligne], 15 | 2022, URL:https://journals.openedition.org/craup/10773; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/craup.10773.
16.
HeckerSHacklayMBowserAMakuchZVogelJBonnA (2018) Citizen science: innovation in open science, society and policy, UCL Press.
17.
JohnsonCCastán BrotoVKombeWOrtizCLipietzBOsuteyeELevyC (forthcoming), Co-production of Knowledge in Action: Emancipatory strategies for urban equality, UCL Press.
18.
JoshiAMooreM (2004) Institutionalised co-production: unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments, Journal of Development Studies, 40 (4): 31-49.
19.
Kolovu KouriMSakumaS (forthcoming) Coproduction as practice of emancipation: Perspectives from Yangon’s community development and savings network, in Johnson et al. (forthcoming)Co-production of Knowledge in Action: Emancipatory strategies for urban equality, UCL Press.
20.
LevyCLipietzB(fortcoming) Liberating ‘expertise’: Knowledge co-production as emancipatory practice. In Jonson et al. (forthcoming) Co-production of Knowledge in Action: Emancipatory strategies for urban equality, UCL Press.
21.
LipietzB (2022) “Revisiting principles of International Engagement for The Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment: Catalysing the ‘public’ role of the university”, Concept note, University College London, January 2022.
22.
LipietzBNewtownC (2016) Pedagogies for “real change”: the DPU/ACHR partnership. In DebouletA. (ed.) Rethinking Precarious Neighbourhoods. Paris: Editions de l’AFD, 252-265.
23.
LuasangCBoonmahathanakornS.Domingo-PriceML (2012) The role of community architects in upgrading; reflecting on the experience in Asia. Environment and Urbanization24(2): 497-512.
24.
MenoniJAC (2022) University Extension in Dispute: Neoliberal Counterreform and Alternatives in Latin American Universities. Latin American Perspectives, 49(3): 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X211004911.
25.
MiraftabF (2009) Insurgent planning: situating radical planning in the global south. Planning Theory8(1): 32–50.
26.
MitlinD (2008) With and beyond the state – co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations, Environment and Urbanization, 20(2): 339-360.
27.
MitlinD (2018) Beyond contention: urban social movements and their multiple approaches to secure transformation. Environment and Urbanization30(2): 557–574.
MitlinDBennettJHornPKingSMakauJMasinba NyamaG (2019) Knowledge matters: the potential contribution of the co-production of research to urban transformation. GDI Working Paper 2019-039. Manchester: The University of Manchester.
30.
OgienALaugierS (2014) Le principe démocratie. Enquête sur les nouvelles formes du politique, Paris, La Découverte.
31.
OstromE (2016) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy and development World Development, vol. 24(6): 1073-1087.
32.
PaskalevaKCooperI (2017) Co-production and governance for smart city services: learning from practice. Editorial: Special issue on Smart City and Service Innovation. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management, 23(5/6): 1–12.
33.
PerryB (2022) Co-production as praxis: Critique and engagement from within the university. Methodological Innovations Online, 15(3): 341-352.
34.
SiameGWatsonV (2022) Co-production and the issue of urban up-scaling and governance change in the global south: The case of Uganda. Planning Theory21(3): 269-290.
35.
SultanaF (2021) Climate change, COVID-19, and the co-production of injustices: A feminist reading of overlapping crises, Social & Cultural Geography. 22(4): 447-460.
36.
Urban Planning (2024) Special issue: Coproduction in the Urban Setting: Fostering Definitional and Conceptual Clarity through Comparative Research, Vol 9.
37.
WatsonV (2013) Planning and the ‘stubborn realities’ of global south-east cities: Some emerging ideas. Planning Theory12(1): 81-100.
38.
WatsonV (2014) Co-production and collaboration in planning – The difference. Planning Theory & Practice15(1): 62-76.
39.
WatsonV (2016) Shifting approaches to planning theory: Global north and global south. Urban Planning1(4): 32–41.
40.
WungpatcharaponSNakhon Sawan Community Development Network, Community Architects Network (forthcoming), Co-creation of the Nakhon Sawan Community Development Network in Thailand, in Johnson et al. (forthcoming), Co-production of Knowledge in Action: Emancipatory strategies for urban equality, UCL Press.