Introduction

The importance of involving users of welfare services in research is receiving increasing attention in public policy documents and in academic literature (Macaulay et al, 2011; Hancock et al, 2012; Heaton et al, 2016). Nowotny et al (2001) describe this tendency as a shift of mode in knowledge production. In the traditional scientific paradigm (mode 1), science is produced within an academic sphere separated from the influence of external society. The new paradigm (mode 2) is defined by research practices performed in dialogue with their implementation. Such research practices require researchers to step down from their ivory towers and recognise that knowledge is produced in arenas other than academia.

The significance of user participation is embedded in strong egalitarian rhetoric and positive concepts such as democratisation and research quality improvement. As Goldstein (2000, p 517) comments: ‘Collaborative research has become as universally loved as Mom and apple pie.’ Nevertheless, in practice, participation by co-researchers is essentially limited (Abma and Broerse, 2010; Hancock et al, 2012; Fleming et al, 2014). In general, researchers set the premises and decide the role expected of co-researchers.

Thus, while participation and co-production often appear to be fine words encompassing very different kinds of participation by actors outside the researcher community, in this way they may conceal the exercise of power and make hierarchical structures invisible (McLaughlin, 2009; Frankham and Tracy, 2012; Phillips et al, 2013). Nevertheless, the limited participation of co-researchers with service-user backgrounds has only been put on the agenda to a small degree (Abma, 2009; Brett et al, 2012). Frankham (2009) claims that there is resistance to such criticism, and Hodgson and Canvin (2005, p 48) comment that ‘the value of user participation currently occupies a “morally imperious” position and is “increasingly resistant to criticism”.’

Critics advocate that research proclaiming user involvement be deromanticised and subject to greater criticism. Important questions include: Behind the apparent recognition of service users’ experiences and competence, is their participation in reality symbolic, serving mainly to legitimise projects that in practice are controlled by the researchers? If so, why? Is it mainly because researchers are sceptical of non-researchers as equal actors in the research process? Alternatively, is it primarily because of possible challenges when actors with different backgrounds and expectations meet to co-produce knowledge?