Background: In participatory research approaches, co-researchers and university researchers aim to co-produce and disseminate knowledge across difference in order to contribute to social and practice change as well as research. The approaches often employ arts-based research methods to elicit experiential, embodied, affective, aesthetic ways of knowing. The use of arts-based research in co-production in participatory research is embedded in a contested discursive terrain. Here, it is embroiled in political struggles for legitimacy revolving around what counts as knowledge and whose knowledge counts. Aims and objectives: The aim is to present and illustrate the use of a theoretical framework for analysing the complexities of co-production in the nexus between arts and research - with a focus on the overarching tension between cultivating the collaborative, creative process and producing specific research results. The article maps out the contested discursive terrain of arts-based co-production, and illustrates the use of the theoretical framework in analysis of a participatory research project about dance for people with Parkinson's disease and their spouses. Methods: The theoretical framework combines Bakhtin's theory of dialogue, Foucault's theory of power/knowledge and discourse, Wetherell's theory of affect and emotion, and work in arts-based research on embodied, affective, aesthetic knowing. Results: The analysis shows how arts-based processes of co-production elicit embodied, emotional, aesthetic knowing and with what consequences for the research-based knowledge and other outputs generated. Discussion and conclusions: Trying to contribute to both research and practice entails navigating in a discursive terrain in which criteria for judging results, outputs and impact are often defined across conflicting discourses.
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.
CITATION STYLE
Phillips, L., Christensen-Strynø, M. B., & Frølunde, L. (2022). Arts-based co-production in participatory research: harnessing creativity in the tension between process and product. Evidence and Policy, 18(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16445103995426