Not least in the welfare area, there are increasingly expectations and claims that the recipients and users of research should have influence over and take part in the research process. The chapter discusses what the background for this development is and goes closer into what are the arguments for the development. Further, the question is asked who are defined as users and how participation is defined. The concept «co-production» is chosen as the heading for the book and the chapter. Therefore, space is used to relate the co-production concept to other concepts used to describe and discuss research where recipients and users are involved in the research process.

The chapter accounts for experiences from the cooperation between researchers and co-researchers with experiences as service users in the project «User participation – from policy to practice. The goal of the project was to investigate how official goals of user participation in the welfare services were implemented for three user groups: Elderly people, disabled people and persons with mental health problems. An important part of the project was to recruit co-researchers with experiences as service users to take an active part in the project. The experiences from the cooperation are described as mainly good and positive from both the researchers and the co-researchers. The co-researchers have experienced recognition, respect and being taken seriously. Both the researchers and the co-researchers think the participation of the co-researchers had a positive influence on the results from the project. However, the role and contribution from the co-researchers varied in the different parts of the research process. The experiences from the project clarify the importance of having time to clarify the goal of the project and the roles and expectations of the participants.

Researchers have been criticised for primarily being occupied with benefits of user involvement to the research process and for conceiving user involvement as an instrument for better research. Rather user involvement should contribute to empowerment of the users and be organized as collaboration or user-controlled research.

Based on experiences with a user panel linked to the research project «Transitions in rehabilitation», we here argue that benefits to the research process and empowerment of the users are not contradictory achievements. Rather, empowerment is achieved when the users’ contributions are beneficial to the research process.

The involvement of people with learning disabilities in research is about equality and realization of fundamental human rights. Inclusive research, however, is a little-explored field in the Norwegian context. The chapter describes how the inclusion of people with disabilities in research circles can take place and contribute to the visualization of citizenship and everyday life of people with disabilities. Based on results from an ongoing Ph.D.-project, resources and barriers in research collaboration with people with disabilities are discussed.

The chapter is based on a project where representatives from four disability rights organizations and four educations at two faculties at Oslo and Akershus University College, today OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, worked together for a year. The project, called «From User Testing to Real Participation? A contribution to developing the user perspective in research and education in universal design», was established in a collaboration between academia and disability rights organizations. The aim was to strengthen the knowledge base for universal design and facilitate the development of universal design as a theme and method in higher education.

In this chapter we will focus on the cooperation, which characterized the project work from the planning stage and throughout the period. The coproduction was organized by the completion of two working seminars and the appointment of a scientific assistant appointed by the organizations. The project thematizes motivation for cooperation and inequality in interests that govern the engagement in collaborating in research on a topic all involved are interested in, but have different approaches to. The project revealed differences in working methods and culture of the actors, and in the approaches to universal design as an academic and interest-oriented topic.

The chapter presents a participatory action research project where project workers challenged the concepts in the social discourse. Concepts such as user, housing, drug addiction and activity were seen as barriers to change, and to establishing democratically organized housing and work. The awareness of language led to changes on the personal level, in the relationships with the environment and in the reported research. The findings are discussed based on institutional theory and empowerment.

The chapter analyses self-help actors' views on knowledge production, exemplified by texts on Anonymous Alcoholics (AA) and Norwegian Self-Help Forum (NSF). All texts are strategic selected and closely read. Both AA’s and NSF’s work are identified as forms of inscribed and activated personal knowledge. The study shows that AA represents a traditional knowledge production, while NSF stands for a more composite and complex way of doing it involving several actors and arenas. User involvement in research stands as opposed to AA strategy, while NSF co-produces with the authorities and has established some control over self-help research.

In this chapter, we describe a teaching program for bachelor students in social work, at the University of Stavanger, where they participated in research-based knowledge production during practice placement, fourth term. We present this as a case and discuss it in light of concepts and theories that emphasize knowledge development and innovation. Key concepts include social innovation, co-production and co-creation and innovation competence. In the final part of the chapter, we point at the importance of ethical reflection as a central part of the innovation process.

In this chapter, the authors discuss research-ethical challenges related to the co-production of knowledge in empirical research. The chapter gives a brief introduction to the Research-Ethics Act and national and international research ethical principles, agreements and guidelines. Thereafter, some topics relevant to the co-production of knowledge are highlighted. The chapter argues that co-production as a research method requires ethically vigilant researchers who can assume responsibility for this type of research project to be research-ethically sound. Through the identification of specific themes that are particularly research-ethically relevant to the co-production of knowledge, the chapter contributes to enhancing the judgement of researchers and research institutions in carrying out research projects.

Expectations for co-production in research also apply to work with children. In this chapter we will describe specific methodological and ethical dilemmas that arise when children are involved in co-production in research. We discuss what responsibilities children can and should have during different phases of research projects, and on what grounds they can contribute to the research process and results. The underlying premise for these questions is based on two perspectives relevant to research with children, a child perspective and the child’s perspective. Because choice of perspective always will be associated with understandings of the underlying knowledge, these perspectives are linked to what Nowotny et al. describe as Modus 1 and Modus 2 knowledge. Children are entitled to participation, but in so doing, may also need protection. The involvement of children in research processes as co-producers of knowledge therefore requires researchers to balance a number of methodological and ethical issues.

This chapter follows the suggestion to draw on a broader set of hermeneutical, life science perspectives to get a better and more qualified assessment of scientifically substantiated knowledge. The chapter discusses lay knowledge based on the case of chronic illness and risk of disease. We claim that when the knowledge interest includes biological, psychological and social conditions, this requires an interpretative integration of lay knowledge and scientific knowledge. Such an approach provides better insight into health-related behavior, and therefore promotes focus on the social determinants of health.

The importance of involving the users of welfare services in research is given increasingly attention in public documents and in literature. However, often participation and co-production appears as fine and positive words that hide tensions and dilemmas participation of co-researchers with a service user background may represent. The chapter looks closer into challenges which might appear when co-researchers are involved in the research process, but also discusses how a cooperation could result in a democratization of the production of knowledge. A main conclusion is that if the knowledge and competence of the co-researchers should be recognized, this must be accounted for in the planning process of the projects. If the co-researchers are to be recognized as actors of equal value, it is still necessary with a more fundamental discussion of what is seen as valuable knowledge and how knowledge is created through research.

The purpose of the chapter is to provide a better understanding of how research quality and research impact can be conceptualized and evaluated when users become co-producers in research. Two main questions are asked: What characterizes research quality in a co-production perspective and how can research quality be evaluated? And what is the potential benefit of co-production in research and how do we measure the utility of user involvement? The questions are sought answered through a systematic review of articles that have summarized the status of knowledge in this field. The review shows that there is a need for a more integrated understanding of research quality and impact that addresses the various objectives of co-produced research. How different forms of knowledge can be integrated into different contexts requires special attention if one is to succeed in exploiting the potential of co-produced research.