Introduction

Collaborative research is aimed at co-producing knowledge, which refers to the ways in which service users (or other participants) can be involved in collaborative partnerships with conventional researchers to develop research, new types of knowledge and practice (Needham, 2009). This represents a transcendence of the traditional distinction between researchers and service users. Collaborative research is recognised as part of a ‘dialogic turn’ in which communication is approached as a dialogue between the participants in the research group. The knowledge production should be approached as an intertwined process (Phillips, 2011). Co-produced knowledge potentially increases the relevance for both users and the field of practice, and aims to have an empowering effect on users, allowing their experiential knowledge to be acknowledged.

Users can be involved at different levels and stages of the research process, ranging from the planning of projects, design and research questions to data production, analysis and interpretation (McLaughlin, 2010). There is a large body of literature available on the benefits, barriers and potential outcomes of collaborative research and user involvement. However, the final phase of a research process, that is, the writing and dissemination of results, is less explored. Writing academic articles and reports is a task that conventional researchers are trained in and are expected to carry out in order to meet academic, societal and funders’ needs and requirements. How can co-writing be carried out without positioning the researcher as the expert and overruling the user? I will describe some of the lessons learned from co-writing, with the aim of turning them into learning experiences that may be useful for future collaborative research.

Theoretical underpinning of service users’ involvement in knowledge production

Co-production of knowledge, dialogue and participation as signifiers of collaborative research can be linked to the influential ideas put forward by Nowotny et al (2001), which claim that we no longer live in a society where academia maintains control over how, where and by whom knowledge is produced. We live in a knowledge society, characterised by the transition from mode-1 to mode-2 knowledge production. Whereas mode 1 is characterised by theory formation and testing within a discipline towards the goal of universal knowledge, mode 2 is characterised by knowledge produced for application.