Leadership and the hidden politics of co-produced research: a Q-methodology study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Leadership and the hidden politics of co-produced research : a Q-methodology study. / Durose, Catherine; Perry, Beth ; Richardson, Liz; Dean, Rikki.

In: International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 19.09.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{91cc779c34d647e692045a7f986b1a43,
title = "Leadership and the hidden politics of co-produced research: a Q-methodology study",
abstract = "Co-production of research has been promoted, but raises many challenges for academic research, including how to balance between scientific methods and the normative values associated with co-production. Involving the public and other stakeholders can imply different purposes for undertaking research, and different perspectives on how to do it. Who leads, and how, can influence how these disputed issues of purpose, practice, and power, are handled. A gap has been identified on the {\textquoteleft}hidden politics{\textquoteright} of leadership in co-produced research. The Q-methodology study presented in this paper offered a means to interrogate the different perspectives on leadership in co-produced research. Through systematic, comparative and empirically-grounded analysis, we identified four distinct viewpoints on leadership in co-production, offering competing perspectives on the practice of leadership, how questions of power should be addressed and contrasting purposes, emphasizing: creativity, outcomes, vision or equality. In reflecting on their divergence, as well as points of commonality, we demonstrate the value of centring questions of otherwise {\textquoteleft}hidden{\textquoteright} politics in debates on co-production and leadership. Our research offers theoretical advance in understanding how leadership in co-production is contested, and practical utility in offering heuristics to help navigate the messy realities of co-production.",
author = "Catherine Durose and Beth Perry and Liz Richardson and Rikki Dean",
year = "2021",
month = sep,
day = "19",
doi = "10.1080/13645579.2021.1960738",
language = "English",
journal = "International Journal of Social Research Methodology ",
issn = "1364-5579",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Leadership and the hidden politics of co-produced research

T2 - a Q-methodology study

AU - Durose, Catherine

AU - Perry, Beth

AU - Richardson, Liz

AU - Dean, Rikki

PY - 2021/9/19

Y1 - 2021/9/19

N2 - Co-production of research has been promoted, but raises many challenges for academic research, including how to balance between scientific methods and the normative values associated with co-production. Involving the public and other stakeholders can imply different purposes for undertaking research, and different perspectives on how to do it. Who leads, and how, can influence how these disputed issues of purpose, practice, and power, are handled. A gap has been identified on the ‘hidden politics’ of leadership in co-produced research. The Q-methodology study presented in this paper offered a means to interrogate the different perspectives on leadership in co-produced research. Through systematic, comparative and empirically-grounded analysis, we identified four distinct viewpoints on leadership in co-production, offering competing perspectives on the practice of leadership, how questions of power should be addressed and contrasting purposes, emphasizing: creativity, outcomes, vision or equality. In reflecting on their divergence, as well as points of commonality, we demonstrate the value of centring questions of otherwise ‘hidden’ politics in debates on co-production and leadership. Our research offers theoretical advance in understanding how leadership in co-production is contested, and practical utility in offering heuristics to help navigate the messy realities of co-production.

AB - Co-production of research has been promoted, but raises many challenges for academic research, including how to balance between scientific methods and the normative values associated with co-production. Involving the public and other stakeholders can imply different purposes for undertaking research, and different perspectives on how to do it. Who leads, and how, can influence how these disputed issues of purpose, practice, and power, are handled. A gap has been identified on the ‘hidden politics’ of leadership in co-produced research. The Q-methodology study presented in this paper offered a means to interrogate the different perspectives on leadership in co-produced research. Through systematic, comparative and empirically-grounded analysis, we identified four distinct viewpoints on leadership in co-production, offering competing perspectives on the practice of leadership, how questions of power should be addressed and contrasting purposes, emphasizing: creativity, outcomes, vision or equality. In reflecting on their divergence, as well as points of commonality, we demonstrate the value of centring questions of otherwise ‘hidden’ politics in debates on co-production and leadership. Our research offers theoretical advance in understanding how leadership in co-production is contested, and practical utility in offering heuristics to help navigate the messy realities of co-production.

U2 - 10.1080/13645579.2021.1960738

DO - 10.1080/13645579.2021.1960738

M3 - Article

JO - International Journal of Social Research Methodology

JF - International Journal of Social Research Methodology

SN - 1364-5579

ER -