Beyond the “Co”: Rethinking Co-Production in Research

In recent years, co-production has become a buzzword in research, especially in projects involving young people, community engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration. But as the CREATE project winds down, a deeper question emerges: Is co-production truly the model we’re striving for — or is there something more fitting, more honest, and more effective for everyone involved?

This blog draws on reflections from the recent CREATE webinar with Dr. Sylvan Baker and the CREATE Young Persons’ Advisory Group (YPAG), which challenged the assumptions and aspirations behind co-production. What follows is not a rejection of co-production, but a reimagining — a provocation to ask whether we’ve been chasing the right “Co” all along.

The Problem with the “Co” Glossary

Terms like co-production, co-design, co-delivery, and collaboration are often used interchangeably, but as Sylvan pointed out, they are not synonyms. Each carries different implications for power, agency, and responsibility. When these terms are used loosely, they risk obscuring the actual dynamics at play — and can even mask tokenism behind a veneer of equity.

Co-design might mean young people shaped the format, but didn’t stay involved. Co-production might imply shared power, but who really holds the pen when it comes to publications? — Dr. Sylvan Baker

If you want to do a “co,” consider all the kinds of resources it requires — and they’re not just financial. Time, care, emotional labour, and relational investment are just as critical as funding.

Co-Intentionality: A More Honest Frame?

Sylvan introduced the idea of co-intentional research, drawing from Paulo Freire’s pedagogy. Co-intentionality doesn’t assume equal power or contribution — instead, it asks whether all parties are aligned in purpose. It’s about mutuality, not symmetry.

Dr. Crissie Harney, a psychologist and research fellow on the CREATE team, reflected on this during the webinar referring to a recent activity where we collaborated with members of the YPAG on some qualitative thematic analysis.

In some sessions, it felt like we held the knowledge and were sharing it with young people. That imbalance made me uneasy. Co-intentionality helped me reframe that — it’s about clarity of purpose, not pretending we’re all doing the same thing.

She added that the process helped her re-evaluate the project’s analysis, expand interpretations, and identify new codes. It contributed to the accuracy and development of the analysis — and offered a unique perspective from young people, which is central to CREATE.

What Young People Actually Want

The YPAG offered some of the most powerful insights. For them, co-production wasn’t about being given power — it was about being seen, heard, and valued.

It’s not equal power. It’s shared power. It’s about being trusted to speak and knowing it matters. — Srhya

I didn’t know what co-production meant at first. But I knew what it felt like to be part of something, to make something with others.— Annanya

Their reflections suggest that what matters most is relationality — the time, care, and attention given to building trust and community. Whether through birthday cakes, laser tag, or warm fuzzy rooms, the CREATE team invested in relationships. That investment paid off in authentic engagement, deep collaboration, and personal growth.

So… Is Co-Production the Goal?

Maybe not. Maybe co-production is one tool among many — and not always the right one. Maybe what researchers and projects really want is:

• Authentic engagement, not performative inclusion.
• Mutual benefit, not extractive participation.
• Flexibility, not rigid frameworks.
• Relational ethics, not procedural checklists.

And maybe what young people want is:

• To be respected, not recruited.
• To be supported, not studied.
• To be part of something, not a box ticked.

And beyond that, we need to ask: What is the currency or benefit to non-academic partners? If co-production is to be meaningful, it must create value for everyone involved — not just the researchers.

Final Thought: What’s the Right “Co”?

Co-production might not be the answer to every project. But co-intentionality — the shared commitment to a meaningful purpose — might be. It invites us to ask:

• Are we clear on what we’re doing and why?
• Are we honest about who benefits and how?
• Are we willing to adapt, listen, and learn?

If the answer is yes, then maybe we’re already doing the kind of work that matters — whether we call it co-production or not.