‘Doing Co-Produced Research’ Sub-Policy

This Sub-Policy supports researchers in using co-produced research methods in ways that are appropriate to their discipline, context and project. It outlines principles and behaviours for thoughtful, reflexive and context-sensitive practice and does not prescribe a single model of engagement. It recognises that meaningful co-produced research is shaped not only by the actions of individual researchers, but by the institutional, structural and resource conditions within which research takes place.

This is a sub-policy of the University's Open Research Policy which promotes transparency, accessibility, and inclusivity in research by embedding open practices through infrastructure, guidance, and culture.

The Sub-Policy is primarily intended to support students and staff from the University of Bristol to undertake co-produced research. The Sub-Policy also has relevance for community organisations and members of the public involved in co-produced research with the University. A plain language version of the policy is in development (October 2026) and will be made available on the sub-policy webpage in due course.

 

On this page
Updates to this policy Introduction Scope Definitions Responsibilities Engaging with partners Before the project Early stages of the project Through the project Late stages of the project Ethical principles and practice Consent/Assent Participant Anonymity Practice and Safety Responsiveness and Reflexivity Payment Data Management Intellectual Property (IP) Credit, attribution and authorship References and further information Explainers General Guidance and Toolkits Engaging with Partners Ethics Payment Acknowledgements

s

1. Updates to this policy

1.1 This is a new policy.

Back to top

2. Introduction

2.1 This sub-policy sets out the University’s approach to co-produced research. It uses the term co-produced research to encompass a range of research practices in which partners are actively involved in any (or all) stages of a research project. Co-produced research is used as an umbrella term which encompasses various collaborative approaches. These may be referred to by other terms including community and citizen science, public and patient involvement, user-led design, or co-production. These terms are explored in more detail in Section 4. While there is considerable overlap between these terms, these distinctions are not fixed and in practice the boundaries between these approaches are often blurred.

2.2 It should be read alongside the University’s Open Research Policy, particularly its emphasis on developing research practices that are more transparent, inclusive and engaged with a wider range of communities and knowledge systems.

2.3 Involving people and communities in research is not simply an additional stage or procedural requirement, but part of how research is conceptualised, conducted and communicated. Co-produced approaches bring different forms of knowledge, experience and perspective into the research process, challenge established power dynamics and raise important questions about how knowledge is produced, whose perspectives are centred, and how contributions are recognised and valued. Co-produced research therefore has transformative potential and can improve the relevance and impact of academic research while facilitating positive change for those communities that are involved.

2.4 A practical guide to help researchers start thinking about how to carry out co-produced research is included in the Appendix [in development October 2026; available on the sub-policy webpage in due course].

2.5 The term must is used to denote actions that are compulsory or necessary, and should denotes best practice and aspiration to lead by example.

Back to top

3. Scope

3.1 This sub-policy applies to all staff and students at the University of Bristol engaged in research activity, or activity in support of research. It is also relevant for external partners, organisations and community members engaged in co-produced research with the University.

3.2 It is not intended to apply to large-scale collaborative research projects with partners that have comparable access to resources such as independent legal advice. For example, industry partnerships.

3.3 There are varied definitions of co-production in the literature. This sub-policy uses ‘co-produced research’ as an umbrella term to encompass a range of research practices in which partners are actively involved in any (or all) stages of a research project. Partners may include people from communities or third sector organisations, those with lived experience to share, or members of the public. Active involvement means that they have a level of control over the study, such as by collecting data, sitting on an advisory board, co-authoring research outputs or conceptualising the focus of the research.

3.4 Co-produced research may take place at any point in the research lifecycle or throughout the project. At its most extensive and inclusive, co-produced research actively involves partners as collaborators and producers of knowledge throughout the lifecycle of a project; from the earliest stages of developing an idea through to the dissemination of outputs and beyond. In other cases, co-produced research may be focused on particular stages of the research. What is important is not the extent of involvement in itself, but the underpinning values and ways of relating to each other, how clearly its nature and role are understood, how it shapes the research as it unfolds.

Back to top

4. Definitions

Encompassed under co-produced research

4.1 Community and citizen science: Actively involves the general public in the scientific endeavour, with the goal of democratising science and utilising community networks and access to increase the quantity of data that can be collected. Community and citizen scientists can be involved in all stages of research, acting as collaborators, contributors or project leaders.

4.2 Co-production: Involves partners who are actively involved and empowered as collaborators in the research, either at the start of the project or throughout the research lifecycle. For example, co-produced health research may involve health professionals and patients, while co-produced education research may involve teaching staff and pupils/students. This is motivated by principles such as respecting and valuing the experiences of non-researchers, addressing power dynamics, and building mutually beneficial relationships.

4.3 Participatory research/participatory action research: Actively involves people affected by or interested in a research topic in shaping aspects of the research process, rather than treating them solely as research subjects. Participatory Action Research is a form of participatory research that combines collaborative knowledge generation with action to address issues identified by participants and support meaningful change. Both approaches emphasise shared learning and collaboration, although PAR places particular emphasis on cycles of reflection, action and evaluation aimed at improving practice, policy or social outcomes.

4.4 Public and patient involvement: Involves active research collaboration with the population of interest, as opposed to conducting research “about” them. Researchers can incorporate the lived experience and expertise of patients and the public at all stages of the research process. For example, patients can help to develop a set of research questions, review the suitability of a study design, approve plain language summaries for grant/ethics applications and dissemination, collect and analyse data, and assist with writing up a project for publication.

4.5 User-led design and co-design: Incorporates those who will use a service or product as equal partners in the development and design of the service or product to ensure it is responsive to their needs and lived experience.

Other terminology in this Sub-Policy

4.6 Partners and Participants

1. Partner: Refers to those with an active involvement in a co-produced research project who have a degree of control and influence over said research and the production of knowledge but are not an employee of the University. For example, someone who sits on the project’s advisory board, someone who collects, analyses and/or interprets data, or someone who makes another substantial contribution to the project. Partners may be an organisation or an individual. Partners might be a charity, representatives from a community organisation, individuals with lived experience to share or members of the general public.
2. Participant: Refers to those who are involved in a co-produced research project but who do not have influence over said project. For example, an interviewee or survey respondent.
3. The distinction between partners and participants is made for clarity within this policy document. In practice, roles may shift across a project’s life with participants becoming partners as their understanding and involvement deepens.

4.7 Researcher: Refers to any researchers employed by the University involved in the co-produced research project.

4.8 Research culture: Encompasses the relationships, power dynamics, behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities. It influences researchers’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated.

4.9 Research outputs: Includes books, articles, datasets, exhibitions, software, patents, performances, hardware, physical artifacts and audio/visual media.

4.10 Research data: Is the data (such as interview recordings, results of experiments, measurements, observations, images etc.) used to validate the results in scientific publications or other data used during a project and described in the Data Management Plan.

4.11 Intellectual Property: Is a term used to describe legal rights that can exist in creative outputs generated and works created by individuals. These rights can have value and may be exploited for commercial and other purposes, such as copyright, design rights, patents and trademarks.

4.12 Please see the University of Bristol Open Research Glossary for more definitions.

Back to top

5. Responsibilities

5.1 Researchers: Responsible for reaching collaborative agreement with partners and approaching co-produced research in ways that are thoughtful, reflexive and responsive to context. Jointly responsible for ensuring the research is conducted ethically, considering the potential risks or harms of the research and ensuring the safety and safeguarding of partners and participants. This includes being attentive to how power operates within research relationships, how decisions are made, and whose perspectives shape the direction of the work. Care should be taken to ensure that responsibility is not disproportionately placed on partners without appropriate recognition, training, support and resourcing.

5.2 Partners: Responsible for reaching a collaborative agreement with researchers on roles, expectations and contributions in research projects. Jointly responsible for ensuring the research is conducted ethically, considering the potential risks or harms of the research and ensuring the safety and safeguarding of partners and participants.

5.2 University of Bristol: Responsible for ensuring that co-produced research is not positioned as additional or discretionary elements of research, but is recognised as integral to high-quality, inclusive research practice.

1. University Research Enabling Staff: Responsible for providing infrastructure, systems and processes that can accommodate the realities of co-produced research. This includes appropriate training, guidance, and administrative support.

Back to top

6. Engaging with Partners

Before the project

6.1 Consideration should be given to the appropriate expertise, knowledge and/or life experience relevant for the project that researchers and partners hope to undertake. University Research Institutes, research networks, research support staff and/or existing partners can help to identify and initiate contact with appropriate partners. See Section 12 for links to partnership support services. Researchers should pay explicit attention to the barriers to engaging in research faced by minoritised groups and be aware that the University’s demographic profile influences who is willing to partner with it.

6.2 International co-produced research, particularly with partners in the Global South, should seek intellectual and institutional leadership by the partner as the first and preferred option. Researchers should be aware of Global South-Global North asymmetries, including asymmetries in scheduling, access to platforms and technology and the experience of invitations as obligations. Additional equitable international partnership guidance can be found in the PARC Africa Charter for Transformative Research Collaborations, the TEPSO Toolkit and the Charter for Co-Production Through an Anti-Racist Lens.

6.3 Existing power dynamics and funding systems mean that co-produced research usually begins with the University as potential partners do not always see themselves as knowledge producers and lack the power to initiate research. The University should remain alert to future possibilities for facilitating and enabling partner-led ideas for co-produced research.

Early stages of the project 

6.4 Whether co-produced research is being used throughout the project or at a particular stage, engagement with partners is most effective when it begins early and is approached as the development of an ongoing relationship rather than a discrete task. Building this trusted relationship requires time, openness and a willingness to negotiate expectations, roles and ways of working. Researchers should therefore acknowledge the time and capacity the project will require (from both researchers and partners), including the time and emotional labour required to build trust and develop partnerships.

6.5 The University should support incorporating partnership development and relationship maintenance costs into project budgets as distinct from project activity, where funding opportunities allow. It should also encourage awareness of interlocuters and intermediaries that facilitate and enable these partnerships (both within the university and externally) as key funded project roles.

6.6 Different types of partners may face different barriers to engaging in research and undifferentiated treatment risks better-resourced organisations capturing partnership opportunities and the intensification of inequalities. For example, large charities may have more capacity than smaller voluntary organisations or individual activists. Researchers and partners should consider these differences and commit to differentiated support and payment to respond to what each partner needs to engage in the research project.

6.7 Language considerations are relevant when working with many communities in the UK as well as when working internationally. Researchers and partners should agree the working language of a project. Translation and interpretation costs should be factored into budgeting. Project documents including summaries, agreements and consent forms should be available in partners’ and participants’ language and dissemination should include outputs in languages and forms that are accessible to those communities that have contributed to the project.

6.8 As the project develops, researchers and partners should work together to agree approaches to key areas such as ethics, data management, authorship and intellectual property, as well as any training requirements. These discussions will often involve identifying competing accountabilities, such as institutional and funder requirements, disciplinary exspectations, and the needs and expectations of partners and community members. Researchers and partners should consider whose standards of rigour and quality govern the research and how decisions around knowledge creation, validation and dissemination will be made. Making these constraints and tensions visible can help to support more transparent and equitable decision-making. More information on what to discuss with partners is included in the Appendix [in development October 2026; available on the sub-policy webpage in due course].

6.9 Researchers and partners should work together to identify and budget for mutual capacity strengthening. This may include training on a specific issue such as research ethics, or broader development on facilitation, holding safe spaces, listening and reflexively engaging on power dynamics.

6.10 In their respective contexts, the University, research support staff and researchers should consider the feasibility of extending relevant training offers to partners to contribute to the process of mutual capacity strengthening.

Through the project

6.11 Co-produced research is rarely linear. It is shaped by ongoing dialogue, emerging insights and changing circumstances. For this reason, communication should be consistent and responsive throughout the project. Creating space for reflection and for raising concerns is an important part of maintaining trust and ensuring that issues can be addressed as they arise.

6.12 Evaluation and reporting frameworks should also be responsive and allow renegotiation and redirection as the project develops. The TESF Knowledge Co-Creation in Action’s values-centred ambition statements provide a model for collaborative and reflexive monitoring, evaluation and learning that can be used throughout a project. Researchers and partners should see documented failure and redirection as legitimate research outcomes.

Late stages of the project

6.13 Later stages of the project bring further considerations, including how outputs are developed, who is involved in developing these outputs, how findings are shared, and how contributions are recognised. Decisions about dissemination should take account of both academic and non-academic audiences, and should consider how outputs can be made accessible and meaningful to the communities involved. The outcomes, publication of outputs and impact of a project sometimes fall outside the project’s timeline. In such cases, researchers should ensure that partners and participants are informed of such outcomes and outputs and the impact of their contribution.

6.14 Relationships built through co-produced research do not necessarily end when formal project activity concludes. Where appropriate, researchers should consider how connections might be sustained, what funding is available to support this, and how longer-term impact or change will be understood and communicated. A project’s legacy may well extend beyond formal outputs and include skill development, confidence and capabilities carried forward by researchers and partners and the strengthening of partner organisations.

6.15 Opportunities for reflection, during and after the project, are an important part of co-produced research and can contribute to the ongoing development of practice. Creating space to consider what has worked well, what has been challenging, and what could be approached differently in future can support learning for all involved.

Back to top

7. Ethical principles and practice

7.1 Co-produced research challenges the traditional power-dynamics of academia by engaging communities and members of the public as partners rather than subjects of research. This raises specific ethical dilemmas that are not always covered by traditional academic ethics processes. Researchers should consider these in collaboration with partners and research support staff and ensure that the ethical principles and practices of partners and differing levels of influence on the research project are also taken into account. Additional information can be found in the Brigstow Institute’s Ethical Considerations for Co-Produced Research.

7.2 Co-produced research can be undertaken with partners locally, nationally and internationally. Researchers must take time to consider the power dynamics and sensitivities that they must be aware of in the particular context in which they are undertaking co-produced research. The safety and security of partners and participants must also be considered as it would for any other research project. This is particularly important when undertaking co-produced research on sensitive topics or in high-risk environments. Researchers should engage with the University’s ethics and risk assessment procedures as appropriate to identify and mitigate such risks.

Consent/Assent

7.3 Researchers should ensure that project documents are accessible and that there is adequate time to consult with partners and revise these documents. Researchers must be transparent about the aims, methods, impact and ethical considerations and ensure partners and participants understand the ethics process and relevant timelines.

7.4 Researchers should understand how informed consent procedures can reinforce power dynamics and consider whether this is required or whether an alternative approach is appropriate, such as gaining assent, incorporating consent as an ongoing and revisited process, or finalising consent at the end of a project. Processes should be transparent and accessible, including how partners and participants can withdraw from the project. Researchers must consider how consent/assent is documented, including verbal consent where appropriate.

Participant Anonymity

7.5 Researchers and partners should ensure that all partners and participants understand how their contributions will be represented in outputs so they can make an informed decision about whether or not they would like to be credited. If some people want their names included and attached to their contribution while others wish to remain anonymous, this makes anonymisation procedures more difficult. These conversations may well overlap with discussions around authorship. The CREDIT Taxonomy may be useful for informing such conversations.

7.6 Researchers should work with partners to ensure a process is in place for discussing these issues with participants and capturing their preferences, as well as what will happen if partners or participants change their mind.

Practice and Safety

7.7 The duty of care in co-produced research must extend to all those involved, including researchers, partners and participants. Researchers and partners should work together to pre-empt potential issues while remaining aware that problems might arise that have not been planned for. Researchers and partners must ensure there are procedures for identifying, managing and mitigating emotional and/or psychological distress during the project and that these protocols are in place from the beginning of the project.

7.8 Responsibility for care is shared and should not fall to a single person. This includes ensuring appropriate awareness of any relevant traumas or sensitivities among partners or participants. Researchers and partners should ensure suitable aftercare procedures are in place, such as signposting to helplines or providing mental health support. There should be a clear process for raising ethical or safeguarding concerns and for making complaints.

Responsiveness and Reflexivity

7.9 The nature of co-produced research partnerships means projects are often reflexive, responsive and iterative. An ongoing process, such as regular reflexive meetings, should be agreed with partners to monitor ethical issues, identify emerging risks/harms, addressing areas of concern, and developing and implementing mitigation strategies.

Back to top

8. Payment

8.1 Payment is not only a practical issue, but also an ethical one connected to questions of value and recognition. Additional information on paying project partners is available from the Brigstow Institute.

8.2 Paying partners: Those involved in the project as partners should be paid for the time they dedicate to the project and any associated costs covered (e.g. transport, accommodation, remote working costs). Researchers must work with partners to understand how payments might impact other income streams or welfare benefit payments, and to identify the form of payment most suitable and accessible for them, e.g. cash, bank transfer, vouchers etc. They should also consider whether reimbursement for associated costs is sufficient, or if these costs should be covered in advance to facilitate participation. In some situations, payments in kind such as training or the transfer of ownership of equipment may be appropriate, but these must always be discussed with partners and their preferences taken into account.

8.3 Researchers and partners should also consider the working costs of any partners’ and how these can be incorporated into the budget, which may include funding for the infrastructure of partner organisations or support for Wi-Fi or working from home costs for individual partners.

8.4 Paying participants: Participants are not always paid. Researchers should work with partners to decide what is most appropriate. This may depend on how and to what extent participants are contributing to the project and participants individual preference. It may also be shaped by the requirements of different funding bodies and the preference or typical working practices of partner organisations, particularly if they are involved in recruiting participants.

8.5 Payment guidance: Researchers should check for funder-specific guidance to establish appropriate rates of pay. Some of these are signposted in References and further information (section 12).

8.6 Accessibility: Any obstacles to receiving payment should be identified in advance and practical, accessible guidance should be available so everyone understands the process and timescales. Support should be available to help people navigate payments systems and address any issues that arise.

Back to top

9. Data Management

9.1 Researchers and partners should discuss their expectations for data management and acknowledge any constraints, such as the data infrastructure required for long-term GDPR compliant data storage. This conversation should form the basis of a clear data management plan early in the project, including roles and responsibilities. The FAIR principles and CARE principles can help guide this conversation to ensure data is managed and stored in a manner that is both accessible, ethical and mutually beneficial.

9.2 Researchers should ensure that all partners and participants understand where and how their input will be shared. Data that is being shared should be made accessible to project partners where feasible. In situations where accessible data is not possible, for example due to GDPR constraints, all partners should be part of decision making and understand why data sharing is not possible. It may be that additional steps, such as anonymising data, are necessary for it to be shareable. Where data cannot be shared openly, researchers and partners should consider how the projects findings can be made accessible for partners, participants and community members.

Back to top

10. Intellectual Property (IP)

10.1 Intellectual property (e.g. copyright, patents, trademarks) that arises from a project should be mutually beneficial wherever possible. Researchers should be upfront about any institutional requirements in this regard including specifying background IP. Researchers should not provide IP advice to partners. It may be helpful to acknowledge potential tensions between such institutional requirements, funder obligations and partner expectations. These should be discussed with partners to consider who project outputs belong to and how they can be used by all project partners after the project has ended, to determine an approach that works for everybody. Creative Commons licences may be a suitable option.

10.2 Commercial value should not necessarily preclude openness. Protocols should be agreed with partners early in the project and regularly reviewed when outputs are likely to have commercial value. This will help ensure the approach responds to the nuance of the project and partners’ needs and expectations. This process can take time as it may involve contracts and licencing.

Back to top

11. Credit, attribution and authorship

11.1 Partners’ contributions to a project can take diverse forms, as can a project’s outputs. Researchers should discuss dissemination and publishing plans with partners and work with partners to ensure those who have made substantial contributions to a project beyond authorship are also credited.

11.2 Authorship and contributorship must be discussed with all partners in the early stages of their involvement to understand people’s expectations, as some partners may want to be credited in a particular way while others want to remain anonymous. Researchers and partners should agree a process for identifying when and how people will be credited as authors or contributors. These conversations should be revisited throughout the project.

11.3 The CRediT taxonomy can be used as a framework to guide such conversations but may not be useful for every project.

Back to top

12. References and further information

Explainers

• What is Participatory Research?, University of Edinburgh

General Guidance and Toolkits

• Inclusive Research Hub
• Toolkits for Co-Produced Research: A Guidebook, Brigstow Institute
• Getting Started with Co-Produced Research [Policy appendix – in development October 2026; available on the sub-policy webpage in due course.]
• A Charter for Co-Production Through an Anti-Racist Lens, Research Action Coalition for Race Equality (RACE)
• Knowledge Co-Creation in Action, Transforming Education for Sustainable Futures Network (TESF)
• Creating Living Knowledge, Facer and Enright (2016)
• Bridging Knowledge Cultures, Lepore, Hall and Tandon (2024)
• Co-Producing Health and Care Services Toolkit

Engaging with Partners

• Industry Partnerships Portal, University of Bristol [University of Bristol only]
• Connecting for Research, Brigstow Institute
• Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research, UKRI
• UK Standards for Public Involvement, NIHR
• TEPSO Toolkit, Improving visa and passport equity in Global North-South research partnerships, University of Bristol
• Africa Charter for Transformative Research Collaborations, Perivoli Africa Research Centre

Ethics

• Ethical Considerations for Co-Produced Research, Brigstow Institute
• Preventing Harm in Research (Safeguarding), University of Bristol

Payment

• Paying Project Partners Guidance, Brigstow Institute
• NIHR Payment guidance for researchers and professionals involving people in research

Back to top

13. Credit, attribution and authorship

The creation of the ‘Doing Co-Produced Research’ Sub-Policy was supported by an internal 2025-2026 Enhancing Research Culture award at the University of Bristol. The project was led by Zosia Beckles (0000-0003-4352-2266), with Genevieve Kotarska (0009-0009-8809-6150) and Helen Thomas-Hughes (0000-0001-5463-4058). The Open Research Working Group thanks the project team for its work on the project and acknowledges their substantial contributions in conceptualising, investigating, and writing the Sub-Policy.  

The Open Research Working Group also extends its thanks to the named Co-development Partners below and other anonymous Co-development Partners whose contributions have helped inform and shape the final version of this Sub-Policy. Names are included with permission.

• Carina Andrews
• Emily Bartlett (0000-0002-9253-9825)
• Dr Jo Clough (0000-0001-7171-9117)
• Sue Cohen
• Michelle Farr
• Victoria Grace Gabb, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Bristol (0000-0002-7688-766X)
• Lavinia Gambelli, (0000-0002-2257-6364)
• Primrose Granville
• Dr Jude Hill, Centre Manager. University of Bristol
• Pen-Yuan Hsing (0000-0002-5394-879X)
• Becky Parish
• Edmund Tadeusz Brooks
• Gail A. Thornton
• Emma Tonkin
• Professor Debbie Watson, Professor of Child and Family Welfare and Brigstow Director (0000-0001-5467-3604)
• Ian Watt
• Goya Wilson Vasquez (0000-0003-1942-2193)
• Professor Helen Winter
• Sienna Yates

Back to top

The University of Bristol’s ‘Doing Co-Produced Research’ Sub-Policy is made available under a CC BY 4.0 License.

The PDF version of the 'Doing Co-Produced Research' Sub-Policy available at 10.71706/0504616a-3843-4ce2-9794-8098259b0914 is the definitive and authoritative version.