A new research paper by Kate Marks of the Moving Bodies Lab, Brett Smith co-lead of the Narrative Practices Lab and Victor Merino-Expósito (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) sheds light on how the quality of co-produced research is assessed.
Co-produced research has grown exponentially across health-related disciplines. This offers significant opportunities for research inclusivity, power sharing, knowledge creation and improved impact. However, this article critically interrogates how we understand the quality of co-produced research in ways that are rigorous, equitable, and context specific. The paper explores two contrasting approaches: a criteriological approach, which relies on pre-established, often universal criteria; and a relativist approach, which favours ontological pluralism and evolving criteria co-developed with research participants to assess work.
The authors ultimately call for connoisseurship and greater transparency when communicating co-production research. This work contributes to growing debates across health research to challenge the assumption that co-production is inherently ‘good’ and instead to encourage researchers to address co-production critically.
Discussions from the Co-Production and Physical Activity event in March 2026, co-hosted by the Institute for Medical Humanities and the Moving Bodies Lab, helped to refine the paper.
The paper is available to download freely at the link below.
READ: Marks, K., Merino-Expósito, V., & Smith, B. (2026). Evaluating quality in co-produced research. Critical Public Health, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2026.2692166
