Table 1 Using Davies et al. [3] conceptual domains to compare research co-production with more reductionist approaches

Knowledge types

Broad, inclusive, range of types. Includes research knowledge produced within local contexts that may be applied more widely after review. Values and emphasises explicit, actionable, tacit and experiential knowledge

Research knowledge produced independently of those working in the situation being researched; implies a ‘hierarchy of evidence’

Actions and resources

All mechanisms in use, especially interaction, social influence, facilitation, dissemination, training and education. Embraces complexity, uncertainty and dissonance. Multiple approaches to dissemination

Randomised controlled trials predominate as ‘gold standard’. End of project dissemination mainly via guidelines and peer-reviewed articles are the norm

Purpose and goals

Knowledge-driven, problem-solving, interactive use. Aims at shaping a wide range of outcomes, fosters unexpected types and sources of impact. Capacity-building and shared learning. Emphasis on research and implementation

To generate generalisable facts using rigorous (and ideally controlled) methods largely to answer specific pre-determined questions or test hypotheses. Means to mobilise or implement results not always emphasised nor made explicit

Connections and configurations

Relationship models; systems models

Linear models (may include push and pull)

People and roles

Different stakeholders centrally involved on an equal basis, including researchers, practitioners, managers, policy-makers, service users and the public

Distinction between researchers as ‘knowledge producers’ and policy-makers, managers, practitioners or service users as ‘knowledge users’ or ‘recipients’. Researchers as experts

Context

Emphasis on internal and external context as active ingredients to change. Responsive to dynamic circumstances

Attempts to exclude contextual factors by controlling for them where possible, i.e. they remain in the background