research is creating new knowledge

Neil Armstrong: 'Research is creating new knowledge.'

Research is creating new knowledge.

The quote by Neil Armstrong, "Research is creating new knowledge," is a concise yet powerful statement that encapsulates the essence and significance of research. In straightforward terms, this quote implies that research is not merely about gathering existing information but rather about generating fresh insights and uncovering previously unknown truths. It emphasizes the transformative nature of research and highlights its role in facilitating progress and innovation in various fields.At first glance, this quote may seem self-explanatory, as it points out the fundamental purpose of conducting research. However, by introducing an unexpected philosophical concept, we can delve deeper into its meaning and stimulate intriguing discussions. Let us consider the philosophy of constructivism in the context of this quote to illustrate the subtle complexities involved in the process of knowledge creation.Constructivism, in essence, posits that knowledge is actively constructed by individuals based on their experiences, interpretations, and interactions with the world. It suggests that knowledge is not simply passively absorbed from the environment but rather emerges through the active engagement of an individual's cognitive processes. This approach challenges the traditional notion of knowledge as an objective and static entity, and instead portrays it as a dynamic and subjective construct.When we apply the concept of constructivism to Armstrong's quote, a thought-provoking comparison and contrast emerge. Research, as discussed earlier, is undoubtedly a means of creating new knowledge. However, the philosophical lens of constructivism encourages us to ponder the extent to which researchers themselves shape and construct the knowledge they produce. This perspective encourages us to question the role of researchers as active participants in the process of knowledge creation.In the realm of scientific research, for instance, researchers often rely on a hypothesis-driven methodology. They formulate a hypothesis, design experiments, gather data, and analyze the results to draw conclusions. In this process, researchers engage in critical thinking, creative problem-solving, and reasoning to interpret the data and derive meaningful insights. These cognitive processes are inherently subjective and influenced by various factors such as personal biases, cultural backgrounds, and intellectual perspectives.While this subjectivity does not undermine the rigor and credibility of scientific research, it does remind us that the process of knowledge creation is not devoid of human influence. Researchers, as active agents, contribute their unique perspectives, interpretations, and intellectual abilities to generate new knowledge. This understanding calls for a more nuanced appreciation of research as a dynamic interplay between the objective world and the subjective interpretations of researchers.Another intriguing aspect to consider is the collaborative nature of research. In many cases, research efforts are not undertaken by lone individuals but involve teams of researchers from diverse backgrounds and disciplines. The interplay of different perspectives, expertise, and methodologies in collaborative research projects can lead to an even richer creation of new knowledge. Through collective brainstorming, interdisciplinary exchanges, and the synthesis of ideas, collaborative research can produce innovative and multidimensional insights that surpass the boundaries of individual contributions.In conclusion, Neil Armstrong's quote, "Research is creating new knowledge," encapsulates the transformative nature and significance of research. While appearing straightforward at first, a deeper exploration of the philosophical concept of constructivism sheds light on the dynamic and subjective nature of knowledge creation. By acknowledging the role of researchers as active participants who construct knowledge through their unique perspectives and experiences, we gain a more profound understanding of the complexities involved in the research process. Additionally, the collaborative nature of research highlights the value of diverse perspectives and the potential for even greater knowledge creation. Ultimately, this quote serves as a reminder of the boundless possibilities that research offers in expanding our understanding of the world.

Neil Armstrong: 'That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.'

Neil armstrong: 'mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand.'.

How research is creating new knowledge and insight

The pursuit of knowledge and discovery has always been an intrinsic human characteristic, but when new knowledge is curated and put in the right hands it has the power to bring about high value change to society. I work in the research team at the Health Foundation, an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. Our aim is a healthier population, supported by high quality health care that can be equitably accessed. And one key way in which we go about realising this vision is through supporting and funding innovative research and evaluations, which I explore below.

Darshan Patel 12 Jun 2017

Generating new knowledge and insight

We have a long-standing commitment to research. As I write this, the Health Foundation is currently supporting or working on over 160 research projects. And since 2004 for every £3 of grant funding we have awarded, around £1 has been invested in research and evaluation. All of this work has developed our understanding of how to improve aspects of health and health care .

But how do we go about this? Well, we generate new knowledge and insight through a blend of in-house and externally commissioned analysis and research, innovative researcher-led open calls, by supporting individuals through research Chairs and Fellowships , and through rigorous evaluations of our improvement work , as well as evaluating the work of others .

The Health Foundation is currently supporting or working on over 160 research projects.

And we don’t stop there. We try to ensure that our researchers are also well connected to their research colleagues, policy makers and practitioners working in the health service. We hold safe-space networking and knowledge exchange events, share new research widely and support researchers to develop relationships and new connections with policy makers and health care professionals. We also draw on independent expertise to ensure our research is well grounded in policy and practice.

One example of this is our Efficiency Research Programme ’s advisory group which provides expertise and guidance on efficiency across the health sector to seven research teams we are funding. Here its chair Professor Peter Smith , Emeritus Professor of Health Policy at Imperial College, explains why efficiency is such an important subject area in health and social care and outlines some of the challenges that researchers face. Our aim in proactively supporting research in these ways is to share new knowledge and insights quickly and in ways that can be applied by those who make decisions or deliver care.

Informing policy and improvement work

We are proud to see all our effort having impact. Over the last few years we have actively contributed to effective policy development nationally and seen an increase in the number of areas where our views and expertise have been used.

Our research has contributed to the Five Year Forward View , formed the basis for the key recommendations on safety measurement in the Berwick Review of Patient Safety in England, and also underpinned funding increases for the NHS in Wales , to name but a few.

Our research and evaluation places a strong emphasis on improving health service delivery and patient care, and our recent work to advise on the national evaluation of complex new models of care is bearing fruit . Our Improvement Analytics Unit is providing rapid feedback on the impact of new care models, allowing those delivering frontline improvements to make real-time course correction.

As we look to a future with a healthier population, we want decision makers to have evidence that is useful and that reflects the nature of the health challenges we face today. We are working with Dr Harry Rutter , London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, on ways to overcome the research challenges of evaluating complex systems in population health.

Taking the long view

But often impact can take time. Our research and evaluations into patient safety, and person centered care have been active for more than a decade. When we began working in these areas it was first necessary to convince people of the need for change before action could be taken at scale. Now we’re pleased to see that both patient safety and person centered care are embedded in the understanding of high quality care, and national policy reflects some of the insights and approaches we have pioneered with the NHS. In both areas we have been the chosen partner for system-wide implementation plans, for example the Q initiative , which is connecting people with improvement expertise across the UK, and Realizing the Value , which builds on what we know about person centered care.

Our research investment is also helping to build capability and capacity within the research community. Our funding has led to academic career progression, provided stability to enable research teams to grow, and allowed multi-disciplinary teams to carve out a reputation for high-quality research in their particular areas. In some instances our funding has even been leveraged in ways to establish financially sustainable research units.

Plans for the coming year

This year we are going even further to promote research capability , but this time within the NHS. Our exciting new program, Advancing Applied Analytics, launching in June, will support NHS analysts to develop and test novel analytical applications that have the potential to contribute to improvements in patient care and population health.

Our exciting new program, Advancing Applied Analytics, launching in June, will support NHS analysts to develop and test novel analytical applications that have the potential to contribute to improvements in patient care and population health.

And, in six short years our contribution to building a stronger scientific underpinning for quality improvement has culminated in the establishment of a ground-breaking Improvement Research Institute , the first of its kind in Europe. Led by Professor Mary Dixon-Woods , University of Cambridge, the Institute will strengthen the evidence-base for how to improve health care, growing capacity in research skills in the NHS, academia and beyond. I look forward to seeing how the institute generates new and exciting areas of research and enables wide participation in large scale research programs.

2017 is going to be particularly exciting as we will be launching a number of researcher-led open calls over the year.

Our Insight 2017 program is currently open, until 25 July 2017, for ideas to support research that can advance the use of national clinical audits and patient registries to improve healthcare quality.

Later this year we will also be launching a second round of our Behavioral Insights researcher-led open call . Behavioral insights research is gaining widespread traction as a complementary policy lever in tackling the many challenges in improving health and health care. We are thrilled to be a leading funder in this area working alongside experts such as the Behavioral Insights Team . Hannah Burd tells us more this month, explaining how small behaviorally informed changes can lead to significant reductions in inefficiency and waste in health care.

So there you have it, our research in a nutshell.

And, what excites me the most about these 160 or so research projects is the impact that we hope to make in improving health and health care over the next decade. So, keep watching this space and please do get in touch if you would like to know more.

The Health Foundation is an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK.

Our aim is a healthier population, supported by high quality health care that can be equitably accessed. From giving grants to those working at the front line to carrying out research and policy analysis, we shine a light on how to make successful change happen. We use what we know works on the ground to inform effective policymaking and vice versa.

We believe good health and health care are key to a flourishing society. Through sharing what we learn, collaborating with others and building people’s skills and knowledge, we aim to make a difference and contribute to a healthier population.

View the latest posts on the On Health homepage

• Latest Posts

Darshan Patel

Latest posts by darshan patel ( see all ).

• How research is creating new knowledge and insight - 12th June 2017

Recommended posts

Popular on health tags.

• public health
• Human Resources for Health
• global health
• Infectious Diseases of Poverty
• health services research
• reproductive health
• infectious diseases

Popular posts

• Most shared

Sorry. No data so far.

Most Shared Posts

• Using a gender-transformative program to improve adolescent contraception use in South Africa and Lesotho
• Sleep, rest and play – the Journal of Activity, Sedentary and Sleep Behaviors publishes its first articles
• BMC Global and Public Health : New journal to advance SDG research
• COVID-19 Risk Adjustment, Driving Transformation or Normalizing Deviance? It is Our Choice
• Meet the SDG3 researchers: Tatenda Mawoyo and Stefani Du Toit
• January 2024  (1)
• November 2023  (1)
• July 2023  (2)
• June 2023  (1)
• March 2023  (1)
• November 2022  (1)
• October 2022  (2)
• September 2022  (3)
• August 2022  (2)
• July 2022  (1)
• March 2022  (3)
• January 2022  (2)

How research is creating new knowledge and insight

31 May 2017

• Darshan Patel
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on WhatsApp
• Share by email
• Link Copy link

The pursuit of knowledge and discovery has always been an intrinsic human characteristic, but when new knowledge is curated and put in the right hands it has the power to bring about high value change to society. Here at the Health Foundation developing and sharing evidence on what works and why is central to our work to bring about better health and health care for people in the UK.

Generating new knowledge and insight

We have a long-standing commitment to research. As I write this, the Health Foundation is currently supporting or working on over 160 research projects. And since 2004 for every £3 of grant funding we have awarded, around £1 has been invested in research and evaluation. All of this work has developed our understanding of how to improve aspects of health and health care .

But how do we go about this? Well, we generate new knowledge and insight through a blend of in-house and externally commissioned analysis and research, innovative researcher-led open calls, by supporting individuals through research Chairs and Fellowships , and through rigorous evaluations of our improvement work , as well as evaluating the work of others .

And we don’t stop there. We try to ensure that our researchers are also well connected to their research colleagues, policy makers and practitioners working in the health service. We hold safe-space networking and knowledge exchange events, share new research widely and support researchers to develop relationships and new connections with policy makers and health care professionals. We also draw on independent expertise to ensure our research is well grounded in policy and practice.

One example of this is our Efficiency Research Programme Advisory Group which provides expertise and guidance on efficiency across the health sector to seven research teams we are funding. This month its chair Professor Peter Smith , explains why efficiency is such an important subject area in health and social care and outlines some of the challenges that researchers face. Our aim in proactively supporting research in these ways is to share new knowledge and insights quickly and in ways that can be applied by those who make decisions or deliver care.

Informing policy and improvement work

We are proud to see all our effort having impact. Over the last few years we have actively contributed to effective policy development nationally and seen an increase in the number of areas where our views and expertise have been used.

Our research has contributed to the Five Year Forward View , formed the basis for the key recommendations on safety measurement in the Berwick Review of Patient Safety in England, and also underpinned funding increases for the NHS in Wales , to name but a few.

Our research and evaluation places a strong emphasis on improving health service delivery and patient care, and our recent work to advise on the national evaluation of complex new models of care is bearing fruit . Our Improvement Analytics Unit is providing rapid feedback on the impact of new care models, allowing those delivering frontline improvements to make real-time course correction.

As we look to a future with a healthier population, we want decision makers to have evidence that is useful and that reflects the nature of the health challenges we face today. We are working with Dr Harry Rutter on ways to overcome the research challenges of evaluating complex systems in population health.

Taking the long view

But often impact can take time. Our research and evaluations into patient safety, and person centred care have been active for more than a decade. When we began working in these areas it was first necessary to convince people of the need for change before action could be taken at scale. Now we’re pleased to see that both patient safety and person centred care are embedded in the understanding of high quality care, and national policy reflects some of the insights and approaches we have pioneered with the NHS. In both areas we have been the chosen partner for system-wide implementation plans, for example the Q initiative , which is connecting people with improvement expertise across the UK, and Realising the Value , which builds on what we know about person centred care.

Our research investment is also helping to build capability and capacity within the research community. Our funding has led to academic career progression, provided stability to enable research teams to grow, and allowed multi-disciplinary teams to carve out a reputation for high-quality research in their particular areas. In some instances our funding has even been leveraged in ways to establish financially sustainable research units.

Plans for the coming year

This year we are going even further to promote research capability , but this time within the NHS. Our exciting new programme, Advancing Applied Analytics, launching in June, will support NHS analysts to develop and test novel analytical applications that have the potential to contribute to improvements in patient care and population health.

And, in six short years our contribution to building a stronger scientific underpinning for quality improvement has culminated in the establishment of a ground-breaking Improvement Research Institute , the first of its kind in Europe. Led by Professor Mary Dixon-Woods , the Institute will strengthen the evidence-base for how to improve health care, growing capacity in research skills in the NHS, academia and beyond. I look forward to seeing how the institute generates new and exciting areas of research and enables wide participation in large scale research programmes.

2017 is going to be particularly exciting as we will be launching a number of researcher-led open calls over the year.

Our Insight 2017 programme is currently open, until 25 July 2017, for ideas to support research that can advance the use of national clinical audits and patient registries to improve healthcare quality.

Later this year we will also be launching a second round of our Behavioural Insights researcher-led open call . Behavioural insights research is gaining widespread traction as a complementary policy lever in tackling the many challenges in improving health and health care. We are thrilled to be a leading funder in this area working alongside experts such as the Behavioural Insights Team . Hannah Burd tells us more this month, explaining how small behaviourally informed changes can lead to significant reductions in inefficiency and waste in health care.

So there you have it, our research in a nutshell.

And, what excites me the most about these 160 or so research projects is the impact that we hope to make in improving health and health care over the next decade. So, keep watching this space and please do get in touch if you would like to know more.

Darshan Patel is a Senior Research Manager at the Health Foundation

Share this page:

Quick links

• News and media
• Work with us
• Events and webinars

Hear from us

Receive the latest news and updates from the Health Foundation

• 020 7257 8000
• [email protected]
• The Health Foundation Twitter account
• The Health Foundation LinkedIn account
• The Health Foundation Facebook account

Copyright The Health Foundation 2024. Registered charity number 286967.

• Accessibility
• Anti-slavery statement
• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

1.2 Ways of Creating Knowledge

What constitutes knowledge.

To have a deep understanding of what research entails, we need to first consider the historical context of ways of creating knowledge and what constitutes knowledge. Remember that “Research is creating new knowledge”. Our knowledge, thoughts, perceptions and actions are influenced by our worldview, which is a collection of attitudes, values, tales, and expectations about the world. 3 One’s view of the world is at the heart of one’s knowledge. There are different methods of acquiring knowledge, including intuition, authority, logical reasoning and the scientific method. 4

Cambridge dictionary defines intuition as the knowledge from an ability to understand or know something immediately based on feelings rather than facts. 1 It is also described as instinctive knowing without the use of cognitive processes or emotionally charged judgments that result from quick, unconscious, and holistic associations. 5 The impression that something is right comes from intuition. Instincts and intuition are sometimes used interchangeably. 4 Justifications like “that feels right to me” are often used to support intuition. However, as there is no means to evaluate the accuracy of the knowledge based on intuition, there is no way to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate knowledge using such an approach. As a result, it is challenging to assess the correctness of intuition in the absence of action. 4 In research, intuition may lead to generating hypotheses, especially in areas with limited or no prior information. Nonetheless, the hypothesis has to be tested before the knowledge is accepted in modern healthcare settings.

Getting knowledge from an authority figure is another common way of acquiring knowledge. 6 Authority refers to a person or organisation having political or administrative power, influence and control. The information generated from such authority is regarded to be true since it was expressed by a social media influencer or an expert in a certain field. 4 This approach entails embracing novel concepts because an authority figure declares them true. 4 It is one of the quickest and simplest ways to learn; therefore, it can often be a good place to start. 6 Some of these authorities are parents, the media, physicians, priests and other religious leaders, the government, and professors. 4 Although we should be able to trust authority figures in an ideal world, there is always a chance that the information they provide may be incorrect or out of context. 4 War crimes such as the Holocaust and the Guatemala Syphilis research, where atrocities against humanity were committed, are only a few instances when people blindly listened to authoritative leaders without scrutinising the information they were given. 4 Information on research topics obtained from authorities could generate new ideas about the concept being investigated. However, these ideas must be subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny rather than accepted at face value.

Logical reasoning

Logic reasoning or rationalism is any process of knowledge generation that requires the application of reasoning or logic. 4 This approach is predicated on the idea that reason is the primary source of knowledge. 6 It is based on the premise that people can discover the laws that govern the behaviour of natural objects through their efforts. 6 Human behaviour is frequently explained using rationalism. In order to reach sound conclusions utilising this method, premises are provided, and logical principles are followed. However, if any assumptions are wrong, then the conclusion will be invalid. 4 For example, if a student fails to attend a series of compulsory lectures or tutorials, the professor may reason that the student is taking a lackadaisical approach to the subject. However, the assumption that attendance is an indicator of engagement may be untrue and lead to an erroneous conclusion. Perhaps, the student may have been ill or genuinely absent for some other unavoidable reason. This highlights the disadvantage of rationalism, as relying solely on this approach could be misleading, leading to inaccurate conclusions. 4 Thus, while rationalism may be helpful when developing or thinking of a research hypothesis, all research hypotheses need to be tested using the scientific method.

Scientific method

The scientific method is an empirical method for systematically gathering and analysing data to test hypotheses and answer questions. 4 Let’s go back to our example of the professor who concluded that the student who skipped the required classes had a lax attitude. This could possibly be due to some prior interactions with students who had demonstrated a lack of interest in studying the subject. This illustration shows the fallacy of drawing conclusions solely from experience and observation. The amount of experience we have could be constraining, and our sensory perceptions may be misleading. 4 Therefore, it is important to use the scientific method, which allows the researcher to observe, ask questions, test hypotheses, collect data, examine the results and draw conclusions. While researchers often draw on intuition, authority, and logical reason to come up with new questions and ideas, they don’t stop there. 4 In order to test their theories, researchers utilise systematic approaches by making thorough observations under a variety of controlled situations to draw reliable conclusions. 6 Systematic techniques are used in scientific methods, and every technique or design has a set of guidelines or presumptions that make it scientific. 4 Thus, empirical evidence based on observations becomes an item of knowledge. In the following chapters, we will go into greater detail about what the scientific method comprises.

How does scientific method contribute to evidence?

While everyday activities such as cooking, as seen in the opening scenario, may involve research, this type of research may not involve a systematic or controlled approach. Scientific research requires a systematic approach, and it is defined as a systematic inquiry/data-gathering process used to investigate a phenomenon or answer a question. 4 Research is also a way of knowing that involves critical examination of various aspects of a given phenomenon that is under investigation. It requires formulation and understanding of principles that guide practice and the development and testing of new ideas/theories. 7 Research aims to be objective and unbiased and contributes to the advancement of knowledge. Research adds to existing knowledge by offering an understanding or new perspective on a topic, describing the characteristics of individuals or things, or establishing causal links between factors. 8

An Introduction to Research Methods for Undergraduate Health Profession Students Copyright © 2023 by Faith Alele and Bunmi Malau-Aduli is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Tania pearce.

1 School of Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; ua.ude.enu@2elpamm

Myfanwy Maple

Anthony shakeshaft.

2 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick Campus, 22–32 King Street, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia; [email protected]

Sarah Wayland

3 C43A, Jeffrey Miller Admin Building, Cumberland Campus, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia; [email protected]

Kathy McKay

4 Department of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK; ku.shn.trop-ivat@yakcmk

5 Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK

Co-creation of new knowledge has the potential to speed up the discovery and application of new knowledge into practice. However, the progress of co-creation is hindered by a lack of definitional clarity and inconsistent use of terminology. The aim of this paper is to propose a new standardised definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions based on the existing co-creation literature. The authors completed a systematic search of electronic databases and Google Scholar using 10 of the most frequently used co-creation-related keywords to identify relevant studies. Qualitative content analysis was performed, and two reviewers independently tested the categorisation of papers. Of the 6571 papers retrieved, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Examination of the current literature on co-creation demonstrated how the variability of co-creation-related terms can be reduced to four collaborative processes: co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. Based on these four processes, a new definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions is proposed. The analysis revealed the need to address the conceptual ambiguity of the definition of “co-creation of new knowledge”. The proposed new definition may help to resolve the current definitional issues relating to co-creation, allowing researchers and policymakers to progress the development of co-creation of new knowledge in research and practice.

1. Introduction

Researchers, practitioners and policy makers have a strong interest in increasing the speed and efficiency with which research findings contribute to improved public health outcomes. The most frequently cited translational models that facilitate research findings into practice are: RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance); “T” models (Translation Research Continuum); and KTA (Knowledge to Action) [ 1 ]. RE-AIM is an evaluation framework that measures the impact of health interventions on improvements to public health outcomes [ 1 ]. The “T” model framework follows a six-stage linear process where research moves from a discovery or “basic” stage (T0) through to the uptake of research findings into clinical or public health practice (T5) [ 2 , 3 ]. The KTA takes a systems approach where new knowledge is created and applied into practice through two interconnected processes: knowledge creation and action research [ 1 ]. Although these translational models have been widely applied, there is no empirical evidence on whether their application actually improves the uptake of research findings into practice. There is also a paucity of empirical evidence on how these translational models, for example those used in health interventions, are interpreted or used by different stakeholders at different points in the processes that they describe [ 1 ]. Beyond translational models, Community-Based Participatory Research [ 4 ] or Action Research [ 5 ] are alternate practices involving multiple stakeholders; however, there is generally no requirement for a collaborative commitment throughout the whole process from the design phase, and there are often power dynamics that remain unresolved. The result can be that the researchers drive the initial concepts and then leave post intervention trial, taking the knowledge gained with them [ 6 ], thus limiting ongoing benefit to those for whom the intervention was being designed.

Despite conceptual appeal, translational models may be of limited practical benefit for a number of reasons. First, a pre-condition for translating research into practice is that research findings should be readily available, of good methodological quality, and provide useful and useable evidence for those working at multiple levels (community to policy). It has been identified that a substantial proportion (40%–89%) of published research does not meet these criteria: (1) the papers did not include sufficient detail to allow their results to be useful or replicable; (2) they did not take into account existing evidence on the same questions; or, (3) they contained readily avoidable design flaws [ 7 ]. Second, numerous systematic reviews across a wide range of content areas have identified a minority of studies (ranging from an estimated 5% to 25%) report on methodologically sound evaluations of interventions aimed at identifying best evidence-based practice, meaning there is relatively little published research readily able to be translated into improved services or policies [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Third, there is traditionally minimal collaboration between academics, service providers, communities and policymakers in determining the most important research questions and the most appropriate evaluation methods, meaning published research findings are often of limited practical value. Fourth, despite the methodological benefits of well-controlled evaluation designs, such as Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), and their perceived desirability among researchers and academic journal editors, typically the evidence they generate has high internal validity and low external validity (generalisation), meaning the practical applicability of the results of such highly controlled trials is usually variable [ 14 , 15 ]. Fifth, dissemination strategies often fail to convey the importance of research evidence that has established the benefits and costs of interventions, which limits the demand for using translational models to transfer that evidence into practice [ 16 ].

Given these limitations, there is scope to develop additional approaches to improve the speed and efficiency with which research findings contribute to improved health interventions and outcomes. These alternatives do not need to replace existing translational models but would complement them. The common principle across current translational models is a focus on reducing the time gap between discovering new knowledge through research and the uptake of that new knowledge into practice (that is, into the delivery of services, programs or treatments or its integration into policy). A complementary framework, which conceptualises the generation of new knowledge as occurring alongside the delivery of health interventions in organisations, addresses the aforementioned limitations. An example of how this framework could be applied in practice includes mental health organisations involved in the delivery of health interventions such as suicide prevention programs. Health interventions are defined as those interventions creating change in services, treatment or policies, resulting in better health outcomes [ 17 ]. In this scenario, the service providers and researchers collaborate to embed the collection of data (research evaluation) into the routine delivery of services. The collection of data therefore occurs alongside the delivery of the health intervention targeting suicide prevention. The framework would then rely on identified parties co-creating the evidence and the outcome and, thus, the knowledge obtained.

Some research has focused on “how to” co-create, especially in health and community settings [ 18 ]; however, there remains a lack of consensus on the meaning and use of the term co-creation of new knowledge. Many terms are used interchangeably and with ill-defined or no definition as to the meaning behind the terms. A review of the existing literature showed co-creation (also referred to as co-design and co-production) is conceptualised and operationalised in many different ways even within the same field. In health, for instance, the current trend is to depict co-creation as a model of participatory research [ 19 , 20 ]. Others define co-creation as the fusion of two concepts (community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation [ 21 ], while some researchers [ 22 , 23 ] base their understanding on a model devised by Sanders and Stappers. In the latter example, co-design is described as a collection of activities ranging from ideation to planning and evaluation. Despite the lack of consensus, two specific definitions of co-creation have been proposed to resolve some of this conceptual ambiguity: (1) “a process whereby researchers and stakeholders jointly contribute to the ideation, planning, implementation and evaluation of new services and systems as a possible means to optimise the impact of research findings ” [ 22 ]; and, (2) “ the collaborative generation of knowledge by academics working alongside stakeholders from other sectors” [ 20 ]. Although both definitions share the concept of equitable collaboration between stakeholders, neither definition appears to adequately capture the concept of co-creation as simultaneously focusing on both program or policy delivery and the generation of new knowledge. The first definition focuses on the former (see italicised text), and the second focuses on the latter (see italicised text).

The lack of a universally accepted definition creates unnecessary ambiguity [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Researchers are not able to effectively search electronic databases and retrieve relevant studies, which inhibits the development of a coherent, critical mass of adequately homogenous co-creation research. It then becomes far more difficult for service providers and policymakers to engage in co-creation activities because they are being asked to engage in a process that either lacks clarity or is highly variable across different researchers and disciplines. A number of factors are likely to be maintaining the current conceptual ambiguity of co-creation. For example, ‘co-creation’ is used widely in different fields of practice, such as business management, technology, tourism, marketing and, more recently, health. This has generated a range of specific applications of the concept that, at least on face value, may have implied that it is a different concept applied in different contexts, rather than the same concept adapted to different contexts [ 28 ]. As a result, these perceived conceptual differences are exacerbated by different fields of practice attributing different levels of importance to the component processes within co-creation, such as co-ideation and co-evaluation. It must also be remembered the concept of the co-creation of new knowledge is at a relatively early stage of evolution, which means it will initially be characterised by a diverse set of co-created related terms which will solidify into more standardised and accepted lexicon over time [ 29 ].

With recent attention to these collaborative practices and scholars calling for a consensus on the use and meaning of co-related terms [ 30 ], the objective of this paper is to act as a starting point for debate and discussion on standardising the concept of co-creation of new knowledge. The aim of this paper is to propose a definition that is likely to have utility for those working in health interventions to standardize language to better inform others of the processes used. To achieve our aim, three steps were undertaken. First, the identification of contemporary studies that use a co-creation-related term. Second, the use of qualitative content analysis to assess the use of co-creation-related terms and examine patterns in their manifest attributes and meanings. Third, the use of the results of the data analysis to form a foundation for a new proposed definition of co-creation of new knowledge.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted a qualitative content analysis of existing definitions and/or descriptions of any collaborative activities to formulate a standardised definition of “co-creation of knowledge”. Content analysis is a method used for analysing information and interpreting its meaning using a systematic coding approach to identify trends, patterns and relationships in data [ 31 ]. It allows researchers to reliably perform an inductive analysis through systematic examination and constant comparative evaluation of meanings and context [ 32 ]. In using this approach, the authors followed the three phases of data analysis described by Elo and Kyngäs [ 33 ]: (1) preparation (unit of analysis and data collection); (2) organisation (coding and abstraction); and (3) reporting (synthesis of results), detailed below.

2.1. Preparation Phase

2.1.1. unit of analysis and data collection method.

In preparation for the collection of data, published papers containing any description and/or definitions of collaborative activities (e.g., co-design, co-production etc.) were chosen as the unit of analysis [ 34 ]. The method of data collection involved searching for papers containing original or secondary definitions or descriptions of co-creation-related terms. As attention to these practices has grown considerably in recent years [ 35 ] and to ensure the literature we were obtaining is contemporary, we used a five-year range in our search. Each step is clearly described below.

2.1.2. Sampling Strategy

In the absence of a standardised list of co-creation-related keywords and/or established index headings (e.g., Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)) to identify papers, author (TP) performed a snowball search of Google and Google Scholar to compile a list of terms. Initially, the Google search focused on two keywords commonly appearing in the literature: “co-creation” and “co-production”. As this paper focused on the specific use of co-creation terminology, broader concepts such as “collaboration”, “mode 2”, “participatory action research” and “partnership” were excluded from the snowball search. No limits were placed on either publication date or publication type. This helped ensure the maximum number of differing terms were being identified. Scanning the titles and abstracts of the records retrieved resulted in an exhaustive list of co-creation-related synonyms. This process identified 22 unique keywords ( Table 1 ).

Co-creation-related keywords.

2.1.3. Constructing a Controlled List of Search Terms

The list of 22 keywords was reduced to those used most frequently, given the high probability that less frequently used terms, such as “co-development”, would be used simultaneously with more popular terms, such as “co-creation” and “co-production”. Using advanced search methods in two electronic databases—PubMed (Medline) and ProQuest (multidisciplinary databases)—the 22 keywords were ranked by frequency. As shown in Table 1 , this process identified the 10 most frequently used keywords (>50 records retrieved).

2.1.4. Search Protocol and Screening of Records

As shown in Figure 1 , the 10 most frequently mentioned keywords were used to identify and review potentially relevant papers in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) compliant search [ 36 ]. Seven electronic academic databases were searched (Emerald, EBSCO (including CINAHL), Informit, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science), as was Google Scholar to capture grey literature. The eligibility criteria included: (1) papers containing clear definitions or descriptions of co-creation-related processes or activities; (2) papers focused on the delivery of services, programs, policies or products; and (3) empirical and non-empirical papers published in either peer reviewed or grey literature. Both English and non-English citations (with English abstracts) were eligible. As earlier test searches of co-creation-related keywords with no date limitations retrieved a large amount of irrelevant material, the date range was limited to the period from 1 January 2014 to 1 November 2018. This time period allowed the retrieval of a representative sample of differing definitions and descriptions of contemporary co-creation-related terms. Author (TP) completed the search on the 3 November 2018. Search results were imported into Endnote X8, and duplicate citations were removed using the Endnotes’ duplicate identification tool. Rigorous manual checks for any remaining duplicates were also undertaken. The literature search, as shown in Figure 1 , resulted in the identification of 12,094 articles, of which 5523 were duplicates, leaving 6571 papers for review. After exclusion of 6197 papers, the full-text versions of the eligible papers (n = 374) were exported from Endnote X8 into NVivo 11 Pro QSR. Author (TP) systematically checked and re-checked the 374 papers for evidence of definitions or descriptions of co-creation-related activities. At this stage, no detailed assessment of the definition was made, rather any identification of a process description resulted in the papers being included. Of these, 42 papers containing clear definitions or descriptions of co-created activities were identified. It is important to note that 69 additional papers also contained descriptions of co-created processes; however, the descriptions in these papers were too ambiguous to allow them to be categorised. For instance, some papers on co-design did not offer a clear and complete description of the co-design process. Instead, the authors of those papers focused on detailed reporting on the outcomes of the study while only providing a general descriptive overview of the level of involvement by the participants engaged in the process of co-design [ 18 , 37 , 38 ]. This lack of clarity around the co-design process and what was involved and the level of contribution by participants made it difficult for us to accurately categorise these papers.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

All papers including manifest process descriptions met the eligibility criteria for full assessment, as demonstrated in Figure 1 .

2.2. Organization Phase

As only 42 papers met the inclusion criteria, author (TP) performed a manual process of inductive analysis. First, the data were analysed by the lead author through open coding (careful reading, highlighting key phrases and segments of text relating to descriptions or definitions of co-creation-related activities). Second, during the abstraction process, a coding scheme of four subcategories was formed through comparison of similar descriptions and meanings of co-creation-related terms. From this process, regardless of the terminology used in the papers, descriptions of co-related activities were aligned with one of four categories: “ co-ideation ”, “ co-design ”, “ co-implementation ” and “ co-evaluation ”. For example, if a paper referred to a process as “co-production” but was actually describing an activity involving design, then it was classed as “co-design”. If a paper on “co-production” described a mixture of collaborative processes (e.g., co-implementation and co-evaluation), then the paper was categorised under both processes.

3. Reporting and Results Phase

3.1. variability of terms and description of co-creation activities.

The iterative comparison of 42 papers demonstrated the wide variability of co-creation-related terms being used in the literature. For instance, co-ideation was referred to using nine terms, with seven terms used to refer to each of the categories co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. In all, the literature used 18 unique terms to describe the four activities of co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. Of the 92 mentions of a co-creation-related activity identified in the 42 included papers, most terms were related to co-design and co-ideation (n = 36 and n = 26 respectively), followed by co-implementation (n = 17). Synonyms used to describe activities relating to co-evaluation were the least used terms (n = 12). The use of variable terms is evidence of a lack of standardisation in the use of co-creation-related terms across the four identified industries within which this concept appears. Business and marketing used co-creation-related terms most frequently (n = 28), followed by health and welfare sectors (n = 23), community-based (n = 21) and public policy (n = 20) sectors.

3.2. Trustworthiness

The trustworthiness of the study was established using Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) [ 39 ] four criteria: credibility, dependability, confirmability and transferability. Credibility was reached through the use of the constant comparison method to ensure consistency in the categorisation of data and critical peer debriefing with co-researchers [ 40 ]. Dependability was established by having clear documentation of the data collection process and development of the coding frame and the use of correlation coefficient (ICC) where two co-authors (SW and KM) blind to the literature on co-creation categorised a random selection of 40% of the included papers into one or more of the four categories identified in Figure 1 . Reliability between coders was calculated in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS 25) (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), with coding scores demonstrating a good result (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.726; 95% confidence interval 0.624–0.810), as did the interrater reliability of the examination component (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.888; 95% confidence interval. 0.833–0.927). Confirmability was achieved through feedback from two of the co-authors who have experience as community practitioners, while transferability was achieved by searching and including literature from a broad cross section of disciplines.

3.3. Results

The results of our findings are presented in the following 3 tables:

Table 2 summarises the range of co-creation terms used in differing fields of practice appearing in papers published between 2014 and 2018. The identified terms and their descriptions were assessed and categorised according to four primary collaborative processes. In Table 3 , examples of the key phrases and similar descriptions and meanings used by authors to define and describe attributes of co-creation are included. These attributes and meanings assigned by researchers and practitioners were then extracted during the organisational phase and used to formulate the operational definitions shown in Table 4 .

Use of co-creation-related terms in papers with a manifest description of their co-creation process, published in 2014–2018 (n = 42 papers).

Examples of latent and manifest content used to inform a new definition of “Co-Creation of Knowledge”.

Co-Creation of New Knowledge—Terminology and Operational Definitions.

* RCT: Randomised Controlled Trial; SWD: Step Wedge Design; MBD: Multiple Base Design; WHO-QoL:World Health Organization Quality of Life.

4. Discussion

This study identified 42 papers published between 2014 and 2018 that provided a manifest definition and/or description of co-creation-related terms. Among these 42 papers, a co-creation-related term was mentioned 92 times. The range of terms varied widely: for example, co-ideation was described using nine terms. These 92 appearances of a co-creation-related term were readily collapsed into the 4 processes proposed in the standardised definition of the co-creation of new knowledge: co-ideation (26 times); co-design (36 times); co-implementation (17 times); and co-evaluation (12 times). Blinded coders (SW and KM) replicated the classification process, achieving good agreement between themselves and the first author in the classification of studies with a clear definition and/or description of co-creation. During the coding trial, there was considerable variation between coders when assessing papers with latent definitions. This event prevented the coding of papers with ambiguous definitions or descriptions of co-creation-related activities. It also reinforced the importance of establishing unambiguous definitions to optimise the consistent application of the concept of co-creation of new knowledge regardless of the user (researchers, service providers and public health policy practitioners).

Given the current variability and the potential to improve these existing definitions, this paper proposes a standardised definition for the co-creation of new knowledge based on the inductive analysis of the existing literature and input from co-researchers as community practitioners. Specifically, through this process using the content analysis model proposed by Elo and Kyngäs [ 33 ], we have achieved our aim of defining co-creation of new knowledge as:

The generation of new knowledge that is derived from the application of rigorous research methods that are embedded into the delivery of a program or policy (by researchers and a range of actors including service providers, service users, community organisations and policymakers) through four collaborative processes : (1) generating an idea (co-ideation); (2) designing the program or policy and the research methods (co-design); (3) implementing the program or policy according to the agreed research methods (co-implementation), and (4) the collection, analysis and interpretation of data (co-evaluation).

This definition comprises three core principles (indicated by the italicised text in the definition). Principle 1: new knowledge derives from the application of rigorous research methods. While specifying that new knowledge must derive from rigorous research methods may be tautological, these concepts are used separately to emphasise that co-creation of new knowledge is an under-utilised way of applying accepted scientific methods, not an alternative to them. This means commonly used frameworks, such as continuous quality improvement or participatory action, would only achieve co-creation of new knowledge if the methods used were sufficiently rigorous [ 88 ]. Principle 2: research methods are embedded into the delivery of a program or policy as a way to ensure the new knowledge has an immediate practical application, such as quantifying the impact of a program or policy, or the economic efficiency with which it is delivered. Principle 3: as summarised in Table 2 , co-creation comprises four collaborative processes. Common across all of the included papers was the use of the prefix ‘co-’ representing collaboration and mutual engagement. Within each collaborative process, the level of participation and partnership between researchers and service providers may vary depending on the activity being undertaken [ 89 ] and the way the data are being collected. The new knowledge, however, would only be defined as being co-created if it comprised all four processes. Evidence suggests having input from all stakeholders across the entire co-creation process will result in stronger partnerships and a greater commitment by all stakeholders to use the knowledge produced [ 90 ].

4.1. Implications for Service Delivery and Policy Implementation

For service delivery and policy implementation, the benefits of using a standardised definition for the co-creation of new knowledge are threefold. First, it will allow service providers, policymakers and researchers to more easily differentiate between what is co-created knowledge and what is not. Currently, as shown in Table 2 , the literature on co-creation is heterogeneous, and co-creation-related terms are applied without any clear consistency in their meaning. Second, improved clarity, both in the definition of co-creation of new knowledge and in key stakeholders’ understanding about it, is a necessary (although insufficient) step in facilitating a more frequent evaluation of programs and policies that will provide governments, funders and services with more immediate, more relevant and more high-quality evidence about which policies and programs are most effective and are good value for money. This contrasts with the current focus on translational models for utilising research evidence in practice which, as argued in the introduction, are of limited practical benefit to service providers and policymakers. Third, greater clarity about co-creation as a concept and an approach will assist in developing new and innovative ways of embedding research into practice because the processes required for embedded research are clearly specified. The new, applied and timely research evidence generated by greater use of co-creation processes will, in turn, build sustainability in the delivery of cost-effective programs and policies. Good quality evidence provides an unambiguous, transparent rationale that can be used to defend the provision of programs and policies when their existence is challenged by threats, such as funding cuts and organisational restructures. More frequent embedding of research into practice is also likely to encourage a greater focus from all stakeholders on improving outcomes for clients and target populations using rigorous and appropriate methods of data collection [ 91 ].

4.2. Implications for Future Research

There are four key ways in which the concept of co-creation of new knowledge can be developed. First, there is a need to develop a measure of co-creation of new knowledge (based on the definition) to capture the extent to which studies that claim to use a co-creation approach actually do so. The psychometric properties of such a measure would need to be established, including inter-and intra-rater reliability and validity (including content, construct and face validity). Similarly to the development of a measure for the extent to which co-creation is used in relevant papers, a measure of the extent and quality of collaboration between researchers and practitioners would be useful, given the three principles for co-creation proposed by Greenhalgh [ 20 ] emphasise the centrality of collaboration in co-creation of new knowledge. This concept has been applied elsewhere, such as in Pretty’s participation typology used by researchers to assess levels of community participation ranging from no participation to self-mobilisation [ 91 , 92 ]. The extent to which existing measures might be applicable to the co-creation of new knowledge, however, is unknown. Establishing a new co-creation measure will be important where evaluations suggest a program or policy is ineffective, because it would help clarify whether the apparent lack of effectiveness is a consequence of the program or policy itself, of inadequate application of the co-creation process (using a measure of co-creation) or of an under-developed partnership between the key stakeholders (using a measure of participation). Second, identifying when it is appropriate to use a co-creation process is important because these processes will not be applicable to all types of research [ 93 ]. As a general principle, co-creation processes are likely to be most well aligned with research that seeks to produce actionable or usable knowledge [ 93 ]. Third, adaptation of high-quality evaluation designs and measures that could be used in the co-creation of new knowledge would usefully allow for the lack of strict controls in service delivery. Service delivery providers exist in unstable environments, with a changing client base and funding pressures. The co-existence of researchers and service providers calls for evaluation designs that are adaptable to the needs of all stakeholders that are typically able to be achieved in the context of the routine delivery of services or the implementation of public policy [ 88 ]. Fourth, given researchers have very different key performance indicators (KPIs) than service providers and policymakers, establishing common KPIs, such as demonstrating the benefits and costs of programs or policies as they are implemented and using standardised co-creation of new knowledge processes, would encourage greater collaboration and strengthen the focus on outcomes. Further, maximising the value of co-creation of new knowledge will come from understanding the perspectives of the end-user (consumers, citizens, patients, governments, service providers and philanthropists) on the feasibility of co-creation to achieve social policy objectives and funding goals. Standardised terminology will also assist in future theory development and testing where these processes are used and clearly defined.

4.3. Strengths and Limitations

The study has four key limitations. First, this paper examined nearly five years of published co-creation literature. Limiting the search for papers by publication date was based on evidence that the current definitions and processes would be informed by earlier research findings. Furthermore, as the searches were conducted using multiple electronic databases, covering a broad spectrum of disciplines, the risk of bias to a specific discipline was reduced. Second, the outcome of the intraclass correlation co-efficient may have been compromised by the small sample size, as a number of samples above 30 is recommended [ 94 ]. The third limitation is that publications may have been misclassified, although the strength of agreement between coders in categorising the manifest papers suggests that this is unlikely. Fourth, the independent review of 40% of papers may be insufficient to establish that the definition of ‘co-creation of new knowledge’ can be applied consistently in the field. The adequacy of the proposed definition is based on a combination of descriptions of previously applied research processes and the knowledge and experience of field practitioners. The test conducted by the independent reviewers demonstrated general consensus with good agreement. A useful next step for research would be to explore with stakeholders and policymakers this issue in real time or, prospectively, to understand what they think co-creation might be defined as and then apply this to the existing published research. The findings of this paper have already been shared with organisations involved in co-creation activities, namely, those from the field of mental health and suicide prevention.

5. Conclusions

Although co-creation of new knowledge is presented as an alternative model for translating research, its use in industry is hindered by its conceptual immaturity. Evidence of a lack of definitional consistency is seen in the wide variability of terms used by industry professionals to describe co-creation. It is important for practitioners to understand such variability exists, as this could prevent double-work or excess use of limited resources when developing new community-based and targeted health initiatives. In this paper, a new standardised co-creation definition has been proposed, which has been developed from the existing activities and processes identified in the contemporary literature. This new definition will help to address the lack of clarity, initiate debate around building an evidence base on co-creation and demonstrate how the definition can be consistently applied. The practical novelty of this theoretical work is clear, as it allows practitioners and other healthcare workers and researchers to start with the same understandings and strategies when developing new healthcare interventions, making such development clearer and more straightforward. Also, by including in the definition the key principle of embedding research methods in the delivery of services may help to ensure a greater investment by practitioners in the research process and its outcomes. Advancement of co-creation of new knowledge as a concept will depend upon the future development of measures of co-creation to ensure its reliability and validity and the alignment of common key performance indicators to encourage greater collaboration between stakeholders. Future collaborations between researchers, service providers and consumers, building targeted health intervention using the four processes identified in the proposed model of co-creation of new knowledge, will likely reduce the timeframe between development of new interventions and community benefit. Using the three core principles proposed will clarify commitment and roles of all players in any health intervention developments.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Alice Knight for her constructive comments and testing of the coding framework, Rebecca Sanders for the co-efficient calculation and Lyndal Bugeja, Kirsten McCaffrey and Katherine McGill for their valuable suggestions regarding the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.P., M.M. and A.S.; methodology, T.P.; formal analysis, T.P.; validation, T.P., S.W. and K.M.; writing—original draft, T.P.; writing—review and editing, T.P., M.M., A.S., S.W., K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 27 July 2021

Conceptualizing the elements of research impact: towards semantic standards

• Brian Belcher   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7356-745X 1 , 2 &
• Janet Halliwell   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4224-9379 3  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  183 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

7997 Accesses

14 Citations

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Complex networks
• Development studies
• Science, technology and society

Any effort to understand, evaluate, and improve the impact of research must begin with clear concepts and definitions. Currently, key terms to describe research results are used ambiguously, and the most common definitions for these terms are fundamentally flawed. This hinders research design, evaluation, learning, and accountability. Specifically, the terms outcome and impact are often defined and distinguished from one another using relative characteristics, such as the degree, directness, scale, or duration of change. It is proposed instead to define these terms by the kind of change rather than by the degree or temporal nature of change. Research contributions to a change process are modeled as a series of causally inter-related steps in a results chain or results web with three main kinds of results: (i) the direct products of research, referred to as outputs; (ii) changes in the agency and actions of system actors when they are informed/influenced by research outputs, referred to as outcomes; and (iii) tangible changes in the social, economic, environmental, or other physical condition, referred to as realized benefits. Complete definitions for these terms are provided, along with examples. This classification aims to help focus research evaluation appropriately and enhance appreciation of the multiple pathways and mechanisms by which scholarship contributes to change.

Introduction

There are high expectations from the public, research funding agencies, and researchers themselves to contribute to and document impact resulting from their research (Bornmann, 2012 ; Edler et al., 2012 ; Wilsdon et al., 2015 ). Any effort to understand, evaluate, and improve the impact of research must begin with clear concepts and definitions. Currently there is a debilitating lack of clarity and consistency in the use of key terms that describe the results of any intervention, including changes engendered by research. The terms output, outcome, and impact, which are terms used in a typical logic model, are used ambiguously and the most common definitions for these terms are fundamentally flawed (Belcher and Palenberg, 2018 ). This hinders evaluation, learning, and accountability in academic research as much or more than in any other field. This essay, based on the authors’ experience with conceptualizing and assessing research impact in the social sciences and humanities, applied research, and research-for-development contexts, takes a systems perspective on research impact and offers precise sub-categories of impact to improve clarity.

Established concepts used in research evaluation such as “impact factor” and “high impact research” refer to measures of publication and citations of research, but do not measure actual use or value beyond the academic realm (DORA, 2012 ; Hicks et al., 2015 ). There has been increasing attention to the non-academic impacts of research (Bornmann, 2012 ; Oancea, 2019 ; Williams, 2020 ). Alla et al. ( 2017 ) conducted a systematic review of definitions of research impact, finding 108 definitions in 83 publications. However, they noted a dominance of what they called bureaucratic definitions and a widespread failure to actually define the term explicitly. The most highly cited definitions were those of the Research Excellence Framework (“an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia” (REF, 2011 , p. 26)), the Research Councils of the UK (“the demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy” (Economic and Social Research Council, 2021 , para.1)), and the Australian Engagement and Impact Assessment framework (“the contribution that research makes to the economy, society, environment or culture, beyond the contribution to academic research” (Australian Research Council, 2018 , p. 5)). While these broad, all-encompassing concepts give attention to societal benefits beyond academia, they all lack precision and require further classification to be useful analytically. They also fail to recognize that research typically contributes to change within complex social, economic, technical, and environmental systems, in conjunction with many other factors. Based on their review, Alla et al. ( 2017 ) re-emphasize the need for conceptual clarity, while offering their own definition specific to the mental health field: “Research impact is a direct or indirect contribution of research processes or outputs that have informed (or resulted in) development of new (mental) health policy/practices, or revisions of existing (mental) health policy/practices, at various levels of governance (international, national, state, local, organizational, health unit)” (p. 9).

Gow and Redwood ( 2020 ) also give considerable attention to the lack of clarity in interpretation of impact. They devote a chapter to discuss impact terminology and suggest a four-part impact typology: Instrumental; Conceptual; Capacity Building, and Procedural. They do not provide precise definitions for these sub-components of impact, and the authors themselves note that the categories are not mutually exclusive.

The term outcome is also widely used to refer to a step in a results chain. Like impact, outcome is also used ambiguously to refer to everything from the products of research to intermediate and shorter-duration changes stimulated by research, and it is often used as a synonym for impact. Most results chains conceptualize outcomes as resulting from outputs and as precursors to impact. The terms outcome and impact are typically distinguished from one another relatively, based on the degree, directness, scale, or duration of change. For example, the influential OECD ( 2010 ) glossary of evaluation terms defined outcomes as “The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention’s outputs” (p. 28) and impacts as “Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended” (p. 24). As Belcher and Palenberg ( 2018 ) discuss in detail, these definitions do not support clear, unambiguous distinctions between the terms or the concepts they are intended to define. Of particular relevance is the fact that the temporal dimension of these definitions is not helpful for analytical purposes such as research design, evaluation, learning, and accountability.

All the above impact definitions refer to a ‘contribution’ made by research, but devote most of their attention to the locus of change (i.e., beyond academia). They offer little to help specify, understand, or analyze the nature of the contribution research makes, or to ascertain definitively what is included and what is excluded in the definition. To help clarify the concept and advance thinking about research impact, we therefore propose two more precise sub-categories of impact that are defined absolutely, by the kind of change, rather than relatively, by the degree or temporal nature of change. We recognize that change processes happen in complex systems. Research contributes to a change process within a system and can be modeled as a series of causally inter-related steps in a results chain or results web. There are three main kinds of results from research: (i) the products and services of research, produced directly by a research program, which we refer to as outputs; (ii) changes in the agency of other actors when they use and/or are influenced by research outputs, which we refer to as outcomes; and (iii) tangible changes in the social, economic, environmental, or other physical condition, which we refer to as realized benefits. Complete definitions for these terms are provided below, along with examples. This is a classification of the types of contributions of research and scholarship within a theory of change, not a hierarchy of value.

Societal demands for impact naturally focus on positive changes in social, economic, environmental, or other physical condition. Research is supported with the expectation that it will contribute in some way to improvements in human well-being and environmental conditions. In the development field, the term impact is often used to mean mission-level impact (i.e., changes in social, economic, environmental, and/or physical condition) (Belcher and Palenberg, 2018 ). However, the term impact is used commonly and ambiguously in standard English language, and in the academic realm it has both a particular meaning (often measured by citations) and a general meaning that includes what we have called outcomes as well as realized benefits (and costs), as exemplified by the definitions cited above. The term is so imprecise in its common usage, and so loaded with pre-existing definitions, that it would be difficult to re-define. We have therefore elected not to propose a new or restricted definition of the term impact. Rather, we are proposing a classification of sub-categories of impact, which are based on the nature of the change. We use “impact” as an overarching term to denote any change caused in whole or in part by an action or set of actions, including research actions.

Proposed definitions

Knowledge, including new insights, technical innovations, institutional models, and other direct products and services produced by a research program. Outputs are produced by actions within a program’s (including partners) sphere of control (see Fig. 1 ).

Examples of outputs include: new research methods, data sets, analyses, discoveries, histories, new theories, policy analyses or recommendations, and artistic performances. Outputs may also include processes such as discussion fora, networking, or capacity building done as part of a research process.

Outputs are the actual knowledge, innovations, and services produced by research as well as the media that communicate knowledge and innovation, such as books, journal publications, policy briefs, or patents.

A change in knowledge, attitudes, skills, and/or relationships (KASR), ideally manifest as a change in behavior (B), that results in whole or in part from the research process and its outputs. Outcomes may be at the individual, group, organizational, or higher scales.

Outcomes occur in actors beyond the research boundary; that is, outside the sphere of control and within the spheres of influence and interest.

By this definition, a change in an individual, group, or organization’s KASR is an outcome.

If a change in KASR leads to an action or set of actions (a change in behavior Footnote 1 ) by an actor in the system, that action may in turn contribute to changes in other actors’ KASR and behavior. Such downstream changes are also defined as outcomes. A change in KASR is an outcome by this definition, but it can only contribute to further change if it leads to some action.

In research evaluation, outcomes can be disaggregated into academic outcomes , which refers to influences and changes within the academic realm, and societal outcomes , which refers to changes outside the academic realm.

Examples of academic outcomes include adoption and use of new methods, replication of studies, use of data sets, or use of new theories by other researchers.

Examples of societal outcomes include changes Footnote 2 in understanding of risk or vulnerabilities; changes in public understanding, values, and attitudes; adoption of new technologies or organizational practices; licensing of patents; new partnerships with community groups; skills and capabilities inculcated through the research experience; shared knowledge and public discourse; new policy or regulations; or creation of a social enterprise.

Realized benefits

A change in economic, social, or environmental condition resulting in whole or in part from a chain of events to which research has contributed. This can manifest as a change in flow or change in state. Benefits/costs may be realized at individual, group, organizational, or higher scales.

Realizing tangible social, economic, and/or environmental benefits often Footnote 3 involves actors outside the program’s/researcher’s sphere of influence and is the ultimate stage of a complex pathway and change process to which the research has contributed.

Examples of realized benefits include: changes in income (flow) or wealth (state), changes in the level of press freedom (state), changes in carbon emissions (flow) or water quality (state), changes in levels of experienced racism, or changes in a person’s or a community’s mental health status.

Realized benefits may be positive or negative in the same way an investment can yield a negative return; that is, the change process to which research contributes may have negative or harmful social, economic, and/or environmental consequences for some or all stakeholders. Such negative consequences are sometimes termed “grimpacts” (Derrick et al., 2018 , p. 1199).

Research outputs, outcomes, and realized benefits in a theory of change

Figure 1 illustrates a research program Footnote 4 theory of change. The three spheres reflect the fact that the relative influence of any intervention declines as interactions with other actors and processes increase (Hearn, 2010 ; Montague, 2000 ). The program has a high level of control over program activities and outputs in the sphere of control. Beyond the program boundary, research outputs inform, influence, and support other actors and their actions (outcomes), alongside many other influences and processes, in the sphere of influence. Ideally, the actions of those other actors will then contribute to realized benefits in the sphere of interest.

Generic research theory of change.

In practical terms, the sphere of control includes actions and outputs that can be produced directly by the researcher or research team. This includes actions and outputs produced by collaborators as part of their commitments to a program. If an actor must be persuaded through the provision of knowledge, tools, or advocacy, this change occurs in the sphere of influence. The concept of the sphere of influence attempts to capture the idea that change happens when the KASR of other actors (i.e., not part of the research team) change. These kinds of changes are classified as outcomes of the research if they result in whole or, more likely, in part from the research process and/or output(s). If there are co-produced outputs, it implies that the research process has resulted in KASR and behavior in other actors that would not have happened in the absence of the research, and this change is an outcome. Individually or collectively, changes in behavior that result in part or in whole from the research can lead to realized benefits.

The research program itself is represented in Fig. 1 as a stylized sequence of activities, from top to bottom, within the sphere of control. Activities include developing partnerships with other researchers and/or societal actors and (co-)defining the problem the research will address and the specific questions it seeks to answer. The research then may apply established methods and/or develop new methods to collect and analyze data and (co)create new knowledge and innovations. This list is indicative; not all steps may be present and\or they may occur in different sequence, iteratively, and with or without external actors being involved.

The program’s interactions with and influence in society is represented horizontally, from the sphere of control (program implementation), through the sphere of influence (other actors informed and influenced by research outputs), to the sphere of interest (the tangible benefits to which the research may contribute). The figure tries to represent the dynamic interactions in a complex system. The downward arrows in the sphere of control indicate that each step in the research process contributes to other actions in the research process.

In traditional academic research, the primary aim has been to create new knowledge, search for meaning, and improve understanding. However, research can contribute to outcomes and realized benefits in many ways. Moving from the left to right in the diagram (as indicated by the rightward arrows), each of the individual steps in the research process can produce outputs that contribute independently as well as in combination. For example, the process of developing a partnership may build relationships among stakeholders that have value beyond the program; the research question and/or new methods could stimulate attention and additional research on an important topic; open data policies are increasing the likelihood that data sets will be made available for other uses beyond a program. Each of the steps can contribute to changes in KASR and changes in behavior (B) by other actors. The research process may also be informed and influenced by societal engagement, as represented by the leftward arrows moving from partners, stakeholders, and society back to the program.

The rightward arrow to the second step within the sphere of influence illustrates how changes in KASRB (outcomes) among partners, stakeholders, and society more generally can lead to changes in policy and practice (outcomes) and higher-level system transformations (outcomes), that ultimately lead to changes in social, economic, or environmental condition (realized benefits) in the sphere of interest. This highlights the important role of collaborations and partnerships in co-creating and advancing the use the research-based knowledge and reflects an important rationale for increased use of engaged transdisciplinary research approaches. The circular arrow at the bottom of the diagram represents ongoing stakeholder engagement throughout all stages.

Finally, the figure indicates that the focus of monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) is different at each stage in the impact pathway. Within the sphere of control, the focus is on research quality, broadly defined to include considerations of relevance, credibility, legitimacy, and how research is positioned for use (Belcher et al., 2016 ; Ofir et al., 2016 ). Is the research focus, design, and implementation appropriate and sound? Within the sphere of influence, research evaluation needs to focus on whether and how research has contributed to outcomes. Is there evidence that the research has stimulated or contributed to changes in KASRB, and is it reasonable to expect further knock-on changes? In the sphere of interest, the focus is on the scale and scope of realized benefits and analysis of the relative contribution of research.

It is important to emphasize that this is a classification, not a hierarchy of value. It is intended to support research evaluation by distinguishing the kinds of changes that research can enable, catalyze, and contribute to. In order to assess what difference research makes, we need to know what kind of change we are looking for. Change happens in complex systems and, as illustrated in Fig. 1 , most change happens outside the control of a research program. The kind and degree of change to which any research program contributes and the timeframe over which that change happens will depend on many other factors, including the nature of the issue, the current state of knowledge, and the political climate. In some domains of research (e.g., many Engineering and Applied Sciences), external stakeholders often have close linkages with researchers, such that the pathway through the spheres of influence and interest to realized benefits can be relatively direct and rapid. In Health research, the interface of researchers with individuals with lived experience of a disease provides engagement and learning, and enables more effective translation of research outputs to practice and realized benefits of the affected communities. The outputs of scholarship in Social Sciences and the Humanities may profoundly influence understanding, appreciation, values, and indeed the actions of individuals, organizations, or society more generally (i.e., outcomes). These kinds of changes are often difficult to observe, difficult to measure, and difficult to attribute, and occur over long timeframes, but have value in and of themselves. They may also contribute to realized benefits, but in most cases the attribution challenges are insurmountable because there are so many other causal factors. This classification aims to help focus research evaluation appropriately and enhance appreciation of contributions that scholarship makes to change in more diffuse ways. In any research evaluation, we need to look at outcomes as the primary indicator of research effectiveness.

There has been a great deal of discussion in the literature about research impact, how to define it, and how to measure it, but current definitions and usage remain vague and ambiguous. This essay combines two main ideas to help achieve conceptual clarity. First, we explicitly recognize that research contributes to change within systems as sequential causal processes (with feedback and iteration), in combination with other processes and other actors. We have provided a generic model of a research-to-impact process that: illustrates the declining relative influence of an intervention in a system, shown as spheres of control, influence, and interest; indicates typical actions within a research process; appreciates that individual actions in the research process may make valuable contributions independently as well as in combination, especially in engaged co-produced research; and identifies that the focus of monitoring, evaluation, and learning is different at each stage in the process. Second, we propose that it is practical and useful to classify research results into different kinds. Outputs are the products and services produced directly by research. Outcomes are the changes in KASR experienced by other actors who have been influenced by the outputs of research. Those changes in KASR may also contribute to changes in behavior and, thereby, to subsequent outcomes. Realized benefits are tangible changes in the social, economic, environmental, or other physical conditions. In this framing, research impact includes both outcomes and realized benefits. This classification aims to help focus research evaluation appropriately and enhance appreciation of the multiple pathways and mechanisms by which scholarship contributes to change.

Change in behavior is understood broadly. It is any action that would not otherwise have taken place. It could be something as simple as one person telling another what they have learned, to transformative changes in individual, organizational, institutional, or societal policies or practices. We are asking “Who does what differently as a result of the research?”

Change is assessed against a (hypothetical) counterfactual; i.e., what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. Thus, the change may be a decision to maintain the status quo or to avoid implementing a program.

In some types of research, such as participatory action research, benefits may be realized by participants.

We use the term “program” to refer to a body of research work done by an individual researcher or a team of researchers. The discussion could equally refer to a “project”.

Alla K, Hall WD, Whiteford HA, Head BW, Meurk CS (2017) How do we define the policy impact of public health research? A systematic review. Health Res Pol Syst 15(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0247-z

Article   Google Scholar  

Australian Research Council (2018) Engagement and Impact EI 2018 Assessment Handbook. https://www.arc.gov.au/engagement-and-impact-assessment/ei-key-documents

Belcher BM, Rasmussen KE, Kemshaw MR, Zornes DA (2016) Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Res Eval 25(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv025

Belcher B, Palenberg M (2018) Outcomes and impacts of development interventions: toward conceptual clarity. Am J Eval 39(4):478–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018765698

Bornmann L (2012) Measuring the societal impact of research: research is less and less assessed on scientific impact alone—we should aim to quantify the increasingly important contributions of science to society. EMBO Rep 13(8):673–676. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.99

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Derrick GE, Faria R, Benneworth P, Budtz-Petersen D, Sivertsen G (2018) Towards characterising negative impact: Introducing Grimpact. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators 2018, Leiden, The Netherlands. https://research.utwente.nl/files/57761417/STI2018_paper_201.pdf

DORA (2012) The San Francisco Declaration Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/

Economic and Social Research Council (2021) What is impact?. https://esrc.ukri.org/research/impact-toolkit/what-is-impact/

Edler J, Georghiou L, Blind K, Uyarra E (2012) Evaluating the demand side: new challenges for evaluation. Res Eval 21(1):33–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvr002

Gow J, Redwood H (2020) Impact in international affairs: the quest for world-leading research (1st edn.). Routledge

Hearn S (2010) Outcome mapping: planning, monitoring and evaluation. Outcome mapping learning community. https://www.slideshare.net/sihearn/introduction-to-outcome-mapping

Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, De Rijcke S, Rafols I (2015) Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nat News 520(7548):429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Montague S. (2000) Circles of influence: an approach to structured, succinct strategy. http://www.pmn.net/wp-content/uploads/Circles-of-Influence.pdf

Oancea A (2019) Research governance and the future(s) of research assessment. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0213-6

OECD-DAC (2010) Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf

Ofir Z, Schwandt T, Duggan C, McLean R (2016) RQ+ research quality plus: a holistic approach to evaluating research. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/56528/IDL-56528.pdf?sequence=2

REF (2011) Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Bristol, United Kingdom. https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf

Williams K (2020) Playing the fields: theorizing research impact and its assessment. Res Eval 29(2):191–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa001

Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, Campbell P, Curry S, Hill S, Jones R, Kain R, Kerridge S, Thelwall M, Tinkler J, Viney I, Wouters P, Hill J, Johnson B (2015) The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Sage Publications, London

Download references

Acknowledgements

For their sponsorship of a 2019 workshop by the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences and CASRAI, as well as their valuable comments and feedback at various stages in the development of this article, the authors would like to acknowledge Suzanne Board, Laura Beaupre, Yolande Chan, Kyle Demes, Heather Frost, Laura Hillier, Sandra Lapointe, Sharon Murphy, Nilgun Onder, Emile Paquin, David Phipps, Sally Rutherford, Lisa Shapiro, Karine Souffez, Louise Michelle Verrier, and David Watt. We are also indebted to Anna Hatch for her insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Brian Belcher’s work on this has been supported by the Canada Research Chairs Programme, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Ashoka Canada, and the Forests, Trees and Agroforestry Consortium Research Program.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada

Brian Belcher

Center for International Forestry Research, P.O. Box 0113, BOCBD, Bogor, Indonesia

J. E. Halliwell Associates Inc, Saltspring Island, BC, Canada

Janet Halliwell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Belcher .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Belcher, B., Halliwell, J. Conceptualizing the elements of research impact: towards semantic standards. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 183 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00854-2

Download citation

Received : 21 December 2020

Accepted : 30 June 2021

Published : 27 July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00854-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Evaluating the perceived impact and legacy of master’s degree level research in the allied health professions: a uk-wide cross-sectional survey.

• Terry Cordrey
• Amanda Thomas
• Owen Gustafson

BMC Medical Education (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Open access
• Published: 29 November 2022

Co-creation of new knowledge: Good fortune or good management?

• Tania Pearce 1 ,
• Myfanwy Maple 1 ,
• Kathy McKay 2 , 3 ,
• Anthony Shakeshaft 4 &
• Sarah Wayland 1  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  8 , Article number:  65 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

3153 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Potential solutions to bridging the research practice gap include collaborative frameworks and models. Yet there is little evidence demonstrating their application in practice. In addressing this knowledge gap, this in-depth case study explored how the co-creation of new knowledge framework and its four collaborative processes (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation) are utilised to support people who had attempted suicide through an Australian psychoeducational program known as Eclipse.

Using a case study design and a thematic analysis methodology, multiple sources of qualitative data (collaborative group discussion, personal communications) were analysed inductively and deductively to examine the implementation of co-creation and explore the perspectives of researchers and stakeholders about co-creation and collaborative relationships.

Three broad themes were identified: (1) understanding the language and practice of co-creation, (2) perception of trust formation, and (3) the value of co-creation opportunities. Ultimately, implementing co-creation with or between researchers, industry and people with lived experience requires trust, reciprocity, good fortune, and good management. While implementing co-creation, the co-creation framework was revised to include additional elements identified as missing from the initially proposed framework.

Co-creation of new knowledge poses many challenges to researchers and stakeholders, particularly regarding its “messiness” and non-linear approach to implementation and evaluation. However, as this case study demonstrates, it has the potential to become an alternative framework of best practice for public health interventions in third sector organisations, most notably as it eliminates the often-lengthy gap reported between research evidence and translation into practice. The research highlights the need for co-creation to further study its effectiveness in integrating research and service delivery to generate new knowledge. This may lead to a cultural and behavioural change in the service provider’s approach to research, offering better outcomes for providers, clients, policymakers, universities, and funders.

Plain english summary

Organisations and researchers need to collaborate to produce new knowledge of health interventions. The literature identifies that there is a substantial evidence gap between producing knowledge and improving health outcomes. Here we reflect, via a case study methodology, on ways to co-create new knowledge by following a four-step collaborative process. The case study reviews the evaluation of an Australian-based psychoeducational program for people who attempt suicide by analysing multiple qualitative data sources to explore the perspectives of researchers and stakeholders. We discovered the need for a shared language of co-creation that focuses on experiences of collaboration while seeking out new value-creation opportunities and dismantling barriers. We learnt that implementing co-creation requires trust and good fortune within collaborative relationships alongside good management. Using the alternative collaboration framework of best practice for public health interventions in third sector organisations may eliminate gaps between research evidence and translation into practice, assisting health providers, clients, policymakers, universities, and funders.

Peer Review reports

Knowledge translation refers to ‘a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health, provide more effective health services, and strengthen the health care system’ ( 1 , p165). The production of knowledge and applying it to health interventions is sometimes perceived as a linear and unidirectional process. However, in reality, there is evidence of a substantial gap between the production of knowledge and improvement in health outcomes. A research-practice gap, or knowledge-action gap, describes the gap between what we know (research products) and what we do (actions) [ 2 ]. While researchers have employed various implementation and dissemination strategies to bridge this gap, it can be unclear how successful these attempts have been [ 3 ]. A linear, top-down approach to knowledge creation typically relies on researchers creating new evidence and using peer review as a primary method of sharing and communicating knowledge [ 4 ]. In practice, a complex interaction of systemic drivers often hampers the process of knowledge creation. In turn, this contributes to the research-practice gap by impeding or limiting the effectiveness of knowledge translation. Reported barriers to research translation include academics, practitioners and policymakers who operate from distinctive “communities of practice” with differing operational norms, values and priorities inhibiting research uptake [ 5 , 6 ]. For third sector organisation (TSO) practitioners, a barrier is the lack of resources and time available to implement knowledge, a problem exacerbated by a lack of skills in research and evaluation [ 7 ]. The well-documented issue of a lack of collaborative practice between researchers and practitioners contributes to the research-practice gap [ 8 , 9 ]. Various models, frameworks and approaches have been developed to overcome systemic barriers and improve the speed and efficiency of the research translation process [ 3 ].

One such approach is the co-creation of new knowledge (herein referred to as “co-creation”). Co-creation is regarded as an underutilised but complementary framework of research translation which holds great potential for reducing research waste and maximising research impact [ 10 ]. At the core of co-creation is the formation of collaborative partnerships between researchers (who have skills in evaluation and evidence translation), service providers (with skills in service delivery) and service users (with lived experience). In some contexts, this is known as PPI (Public and Patient Involvement); this paper is referred to as research and stakeholder (including industry and lived experience). Through these collaborative relationships, researchers and stakeholders work together across the research cycle to co-create knowledge that is both actionable and useable.

TSOs appear to be an ideal environment for applying frameworks such as co-creation. TSOs employ highly skilled service providers to implement health intervention programs and deliver services to end-users but lack an understanding of the technical aspects of the evaluation process, including data collection and analysis [ 7 ]. As a group, this makes them “research ready” to engage in collaborative relationships with researchers to solve complex problems through the mutual sharing of knowledge in research design and evaluation and the delivery of services [ 7 , 11 , 12 ]. Furthermore, by collaborating with TSO stakeholders, especially in suicide prevention, those with lived experience can engage researchers and contribute to improving services and program evaluations. Increasing collaborative engagement requires TSOs to participate in rigorous evaluations to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness [ 13 , 14 ]. Co-creating research offers TSOs a transparent evaluation process in which stakeholders and researchers communicate clearly at each stage of the four-step process. Apart from clear communication, the success of the co-creation process depends on good governance [ 15 ] and the establishment of an equitable and sustainable partnership founded on high levels of social capital and trust [ 15 , 16 ].

Co-creation also has the potential to produce high-quality and cost-effective evaluations [ 10 ]. By integrating data collection with service delivery, co-creation can also enhance the research capacity and sustainability of TSOs [ 10 ]. Co-creation requires all parties, especially within the researcher-stakeholder collaboration, to work together through the program’s implementation from the conception stage through the program evaluation phase, undertaking four collaborative processes: “ (i) generating an idea (co-ideation); (ii) designing the program or policy and the research methods (co-design); (iii) implementing the program or policy according to the agreed research methods (co-implementation) and (iv) the collection, analysis and interpretation of data (co-evaluation) ” ( 10 , p.11). The data collection process is an essential component of the co-creation framework, as it facilitates integrating research knowledge into delivering services to end users. For a full explanation of how co-creation is defined and constructed, refer to Pearce [ 10 ].

Whilst there exists an unspoken assumption of collaboration between researchers and TSOs, a recent systematic review of multisectoral collaborations in mental health and suicide suggests otherwise [ 17 ]. A review of 16 collaborative studies found no evidence that health-related TSOs engaged in co-creation or partnerships [ 17 ]. This paper presents a case study in which co-creation was operationalised with a TSO-based suicide prevention program to address the research-practice gap between researchers and practitioners. The study had three aims: (1) document and describe the events and critical factors influencing the implementation of co-creation, including the value of co-creation opportunities presented, (2) explore the perspectives of primary stakeholders, including researchers, to illustrate their understanding of the implementation of co-creation, and; (3) revisit the proposed model and make any adjustments.

The case: eclipse program (lifeline mid coast)

Lifeline Mid Coast is a community-based TSO located in a semi-rural location on the North Coast of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, serving over 220,000 people [ 18 ]. This organisation specialises in the delivery of suicide prevention services and, in 2016, initiated discussions with researchers about implementing Eclipse, an 8 week psychoeducation group for people who had previously attempted suicide [ 19 ]. The Eclipse program was piloted in 2017 to reduce suicidality and increase resilience and help-seeking behaviours. The participant outcomes from the program are reported elsewhere. The Eclipse program was modelled on a similar program operated by a US mental health service, Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services [ 20 ], located in Los Angles, USA. Variations to the group curriculum for Australian and local context, adaptations to the evaluation tools, and Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approval were sought in 2017, then expanded to other sites outside Lifeline Mid Coast from 2018 onwards. Strong links with Didi Hirsch [ 20 ], the Australian researchers and service providers, have been maintained to share experiences of service delivery collaboratively. This case study presents the application of the co-creation framework, and its four collaborative processes, involved in the delivery and implementation of the Eclipse program.

Methodology

Case study design.

According to Merriam [ 21 ], a case study is “an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single instance, phenomenon or social unit”. Further to this, as suggested by Crowe [ 22 ], case studies are used to “generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context” In effect, they are focused on developing an in-depth understanding of “the whole” of a situation [ 22 ]. Given that this project called for an intensive investigation into applying a research translation framework to evaluating a TSO program over several years, a case study was deemed the most appropriate form of research design. Data sources for the case study include multiple documents and transcripts created throughout the project’s life and evidence from a Collaborative Group Discussion (CGD) held between researchers, TSO stakeholders and funders in March 2020. GCDs, as defined in this study, involve open discussions in which the researcher(s) play the dual role of both facilitator and participant. There are often challenges associated with researchers acting in a dual role. However, in this study, dual role tensions were minimised due to a previously established working relationship shared by the researchers, TSO stakeholders and funders. While the researcher guided the discussion, the discussion was not researcher-led. All participants (including the researchers) were encouraged to participate equally in the sharing of knowledge. The CGD represented an opportunity to collectively reflect on all experiences the researchers, the TSO stakeholders and the funders had encountered while working collaboratively over four years. Post-CGD discussions involved emails sent to stakeholders asking them to reflect on the co-creation framework and the previous collaborative group discussions.

Key stakeholders identified for this case study

Across the project, the overall sample (n = 11) consisted of three different groups of participants: researchers (n = 3), TSO stakeholders, including peer workers with lived experience (n = 5) and funders (n = 3). Each group is described below, with their involvement highlighted.

Researchers: Three researchers were involved throughout the life of the project and participated in program planning and implementation discussions and activities. Two of the three researchers participated in the CGD, where they guided the discussion and shared their experiences and perspectives as co-participants in the research process.

TSO Stakeholders: This group consisted of two professionally trained facilitators in suicide prevention who were involved in the delivery of the Eclipse program, a TSO manager and two peer workers with lived experience. One of the peer workers was the program’s instigator, and one professionally trained facilitator (who retired during the project). A second professionally trained facilitator was recruited following the retirement of the first facilitator. Another TSO stakeholder participant included a TSO manager who had overseen the program’s establishment and development over time. A second peer worker joined the team halfway through the project.

Funders: The third group are the parent organisation’s employees funding the Eclipse evaluation (the Lifeline Research Foundation). The original foundation manager, his replacement, and the Foundation’s engagement manager participated.

Human research ethics committee approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was granted by the University of New England (HE16-219). Role titles are used as pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of participants.

Data collection and analysis

Various types of evidence, such as reports, reflective voice recordings, and CGD, were reviewed for relevant content to the co-creation activities ( the final sample consisted of 17 documents, we only examined documents with references to the four collaborative processes described earlier ) . Initially, ethics approval had been granted for the pilot testing of the Eclipse program from 2017 to 2018, permitting the collection of data, including reflective discussions between researchers, email correspondence between TSO stakeholders and researchers, and the production of program reports. Following this, ethical approval was extended to 2021, allowing for the data collection of CGD meetings and feedback from stakeholders associated with the TSO during that time. Before the CGD, participants received a copy of the information sheet and consent form. The CGD was held in March 2020 and co-facilitated by two researchers who also acted as co-participants. Using an interview guide and the co-creation framework, participants explored the impact of co-creation on the roles of TSO stakeholders and researchers and discussed the benefits and challenges of co-creation in program evaluation. The discussion was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants also received an invitation to share additional feedback about co-creation through follow-up email discussions. In addition to CGD and email feedback, transcribed reflections by the three researchers on the CGD outcomes were included in the analysis.

Data analysis was conducted through a hybrid deductive-inductive process, while a social constructionist perspective informed the interpretation of the data. We relied on the pre-existing co-creation framework [ 10 ] for the deductive analysis to identify co-creation-related activities. The data were also analysed using an inductive approach to uncover explicit meanings or responses (semantic) or conceptual themes that go beyond the mere description of data [ 23 , 24 ]. Meanwhile, a thematic analysis aligns with the social constructionist paradigm, which perceives knowledge as being co-constructed between the researcher and the research participant (co-researchers), and accounts for the role of the researcher within the work. This study focuses on how participants, working within a co-creation framework, make sense of their experiences [ 23 ].

All text data relevant to the planning and implementation of the program (CGD transcripts, post-CGD emails, reports and transcribed reflective discussions) were uploaded into QSR NVivo 12. The data was deductively coded by TP using the co-creation framework [ 10 ] (see below), while inductive analysis was completed to capture any additional semantic and latent content. TP followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step thematic analysis process [ 24 ]. This process involved a recursive process of data familiarisation, deductive coding of data using the co-creation framework, thematic searching for additional semantic and latent responses, and reviewing and developing new themes as identified [ 24 ]. Preliminary coding results were discussed in-depth among all authors.

The case examined here allowed us to conduct an in-depth and multi-faceted exploration of the co-creation framework and its application to a TSO. In doing so, we analysed the CGD and post-CGD participant data to identify three primary themes. We also analysed case study material (as previously described under data collection and analysis) to construct an overview of co-creation and how it appeared in the context of the program evaluation (Table  1 ). The analysis also identified two additional elements for integration into the existing co-creation framework (Table  2 ).

Co-creation experiences of researchers, TSO stakeholders and funders

The thematic analysis identified three broad themes, including (1) understanding the language and practice of co-creation, (2) perceptions of trust formation and (3) the value of co-creation opportunities. Each theme is presented below, utilising verbatim quotes.

Understanding the Language and Practice of Co-creation

Researchers, TSO stakeholders and funders perceived collaborative activities with different levels of understanding about co-creation and the activities within. With their continued involvement in implementing the framework, researchers were well acquainted with the concept of co-creation and its four collaborative activities at a theoretical level, with TSO stakeholders and funders less so. In contrast, TSO stakeholders understood “doing” co-creation as the co-activities tended to be part of their usual workday, even if they weren’t always able to label them the way the researchers had initially conceptualised. When asked about the language of co-creation, TSO stakeholders focused on the term co-design as what they were most familiar with;

I worked with the [different suicide prevention activity] up in [a close regional town], and they all use it. Black Dog Institute [university-based suicide prevention institute] uses it, and health use it, and I’m straight out of Uni from last year, and it was all at Uni as well (TSO stakeholder, 2020)

With co-creation, TSO stakeholders could identify instances during the co-design phase when the group began shaping tangible components of Eclipse. In one example, a participant observes the differing components of the US program compared to what was planned in Australia;

I think co-design may…we may have reached that with Didi Hirsh because they had already come up with their design and their theories, but it was clinical. So, what I wanted was a non-clinical version of that, and I wanted Australian research that was able to support their research or not. So, I think that that’s how I see it. (TSO stakeholder, CGD, 2020)

The approach taken when reviewing the US version of the program demonstrated a clear understanding of the need to adapt (and design) the program to meet the needs of end-users, as this TSO stakeholder expresses:

Australia and America had two different environments. So, I think the American side at the time had a much lower appetite for risk than my particular centre, which had a higher appetite for risk, where DD Hirsch had a voluntary catch-up telephone call if they needed it. We made it mandatory, and from that, a social network was formed, and I think it was because the tyranny of distance we didn’t have. So, I think that our ability to adapt and change depends on the actual environment where whatever the research is about is (TSO stakeholder, CGD, 2020)

During the CGD, participants in the discussion identified activities before the ‘co-ideation phase’. In this initial phase, a peer worker with lived experience (one of the TSO stakeholders) suggested creating a community program to meet the needs of people who have attempted suicide. This initial step was instrumental in the TSO making inquiries into establishing the Eclipse program. Here a TSO stakeholder described being unsure of whether similar programs existed.

… So, I think from there, we went into the idea and exploration. We had no idea what was out there, but it was really not about doing something new. It was really about trying to find out what was out there (TSO stakeholder, CGD, 2020).

Perception of trust formation

Before the commencement of the project (in the newly identified pre-co-creation phase), researchers were consulted and invited to join the project. An existing working relationship between a funder and one of the researchers, in which trust already existed, prompted the invitation for collaboration. Complementary skills and expertise at the right time and a commitment to working collaboratively to achieve the stated objectives made for a successful outcome. The familiarity between researchers, TSO stakeholders, and funders enhanced the level of trust:

Good fortune statement is really integral in research process because sometimes you do have to stumble across something in order to see the connection, and it’s not always deliberate, isn’t it? (Researcher, CGD, 2020).

The success of the collaborative partnership and the program depended upon the development of trust between all involved. One of the researchers involved in the program confirmed how trust was integral to the relationship:

It was like they all… the next person that everyone sought out, they knew that they were like them. So, like (manager) knew that (researcher) could be trusted, and then (manager) knew that you and I could be trusted and then when you and I work on stuff, then you know we can identify what’s going on. And then, with (TSO stakeholder) coming on board, it was really clear very early on that she was the right type of person, but that’s almost the big deficit with the other sites, is because they don’t have that drive or passion or curiosity to do this. They’re just doing it because it’s day to day business. (Researcher, post-CGD reflective discussion, 2020)

The funder was also flexible in adjusting outcome expectations over time as external factors and participant engagement changed service delivery. A sense of trust between stakeholders was also related to the ability of the research team to respond to TSO stakeholders’ pressures:

It is such a relief to have supportive researchers that our understanding of how the groups change and evolve, that the groups are impacted by droughts, fires, floods and COVID. That some participants withdraw and can’t be followed up for research. It really feels that the co-design is designed around the participants and not just the data collection (TSO stakeholder, post CGD email, 2021).

The foundation of trust was also the basis for knowledge exchange between TSO stakeholders and researchers. In this instance, the TSO stakeholder reflects on how researchers used their knowledge of service delivery:

I believe [TSO] helped the research understand nuances of all aspects of service delivery, from establishing the appropriate research paperwork to recruitment, appropriate training and support to the consumers of the service themselves and the barriers that might cause consumers anxiety. This helped the researchers design elements embedded in their research that navigated many of the barriers that might have come up (TSO stakeholder, CGD, 2020).

The value of co-creation opportunities

Through the growth of solid, trusting relationships, the co-creation process sparked several ‘spin-off’ activities, notably those initiated by people with lived experience.

For example, when asked if the TSO would continue to use co-creation, as reported by a TSO stakeholder:

It [the process of co-creation] has inspired us to continue to grow our lived experience of suicide peer support workers. We have developed a Hospital to Recovery program based on peer support and lived experience . (TSO stakeholder, CGD, 2020)

Another value-added opportunity generated through co-creation was how it provided TSO stakeholders with visions of hope for future services and programs:

We would like to engage in more co-creation projects and programs to give reliability and validity to how we are delivering services. It has encouraged us to evolve Eclipse as many of them want to stay engaged after doing one or two cycles of Eclipse . (TSO stakeholder, post CGD email, 2021)

In the program’s early stages, one of the major stumbling blocks in TSO stakeholders’ understanding of co-creation was how co-creation was viewed “through the lens [or context] of experience”. In this instance, from the perspective of TSO stakeholders, the main focus was developing the program alongside peer workers with lived experience and consumers. Co-creation activities like participant data collection (for the evaluation the researchers were conducting) received less attention. The data collection process was, in fact, a steep learning curve for researchers and the TSO stakeholders, where everyone involved held differing priorities. While TSO stakeholders were aware of the importance of evaluation, their main concern was service provision. As described by a TSO stakeholder:

I felt that we got the curriculum here, but we really need…it’s about the participants. It’s about what they want, so we needed so we needed to be able to expand on that but stick to the curriculum but expand and have…it’s their group. It’s their group. We want to hear from them (TSO stakeholder, CGD, 2020).

TSO stakeholders’ perception of data collection hinted at the “messiness” of the process and how, over time, their views changed through experience:

[A] fear of mine as well, only because it’s the being thing, if you’re not in the frame of mind where you should be, tick, tick, tick [for the evaluation survey]…just to get rid of it. But then you’re sort of, well, if I don’t do this, we’re not going to learn what we need and basically, why did I set the group up in the first place. So, I had to change my judgement and my views on it as well to be able to sort of do it but just reading through a form (TSO stakeholder, CGD, 2020).

The suggestion of messiness continued with trying to manage the data collection process and keeping participants engaged over time. However, solutions were also presented, in this case recommending additional administrative support:

Following up participants one month and six months after groups, some disengage and no longer want to participate. Some participants were hard to engage online. Participants with attention issues – find it hard to participate with surveys in a group setting (too distracted). Time—it would be good to have more admin assistance (TSO stakeholder, CGD, 2020).

With TSO facilitators focused on service delivery, it took some time for them to appreciate the purpose of integrating the data collection into the service delivery and the link between data fidelity, intervention effectiveness and quality improvement of the service;

In order to achieve these ends, we needed to be fully aware of how and why of the research and evaluation process to ensure volunteer/participant buy-in and the data was collected in the correct way (TSO stakeholder, post CGD email, 2021).

TSO stakeholder appreciation increased as they learned how research data represents an opportunity to create change. For instance, funders discuss the issues with a lack of complete data and the advantages of a larger sample size:

So, the trends (in the data) are really helpful, but you know, the sort of…you can make a stronger case when you’ve got enough people, enough of a big sample, to be able to say okay, it’s significant. You know, so, that’s an extra level of strength in terms of sort of, you know, laying claim to this being a really effective program and therefore, you know, which we should be sort of top of the list when it comes to funding opportunities (Funders, CGD, 2020).

And in the end, TSO stakeholder appreciation for co-creation and its benefits were described as follows;

This research better captured the experience of those with lived experience were and what their aims for the program were. This helped us design the program and helped the researchers define the scope of the research (TSO stakeholder, post CGD email, 2021).

Reflecting on the implementation and evaluation of the program and the researcher and TSO stakeholder perspectives captured in the collaborative discussion, it became clear that the co-creation framework represented a two-way open system with interactions between the internal and the external. With an open system, the framework, over time, was the subject of several conceptual changes as it adapted to the changing environment [ 25 ].

Table  1 operationalises the activities performed within the application of the co-creation framework to the case study, identifying barriers and challenges documented and described in evidence collected from pilot testing of the Eclipse program in 2017 through to the feedback collected in 2021.

Applying the framework to the case study highlighted two new areas not previously identified. These changes include the addition of a (1) pre-co-creation stage, the possibility of (2) spin-off opportunities and the (3) reiterative processes across the research cycle. First, in the original framework, there was no emphasis on the entry point to co-creation. In this case study, the framework was not considered a linear process with a fixed starting point beginning with “co-ideation” and ending with “co-evaluation”. Co-creation originated external to the co-creation process and depended on the agreement between collaborators to work together to achieve an identified common goal. Second, the co-creation process generates spin-off opportunities which are then feedback in the co-creation process. Additional sites, as well as unexpected events, required prompt flexibility. During COVID-19, along with several natural disasters (multiple floods and fires that resulted in widespread evacuations and dislocation) occurring during the collection period, there was a need to move to online delivery.

As a consequence of co-creation, these spin-off opportunities drew on the knowledge of existing stakeholders, enabling a more efficient and effective means of working together on these new projects. Third, as the stakeholders and researchers carried out the simultaneous implementation and evaluation of the program, the researcher responded and modified the design in real-time to accommodate changing needs. In particular, training guides for TSO stakeholders on data collection and discussions on improving the readability of surveys used in the data collection process and replacing paper forms with online data collection such as web-based surveys.

Currently, there is minimal evidence of TSOs adopting co-creation as a translation model [ 17 ]. Operationalising the co-creation framework to an activity provides insight into how this form of collaboration occurs and allows for assessing whether this method reduces the research-practice gap. While this activity identified issues associated with implementing some co-activities (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation) within the context of a program and practice setting, we identified some barriers and opportunities for applying co-creation to a health intervention. Overall, our findings highlighted three main points: (1) the messiness of co-creation, (2) the evolution of the co-creation framework, and (3) how trust served as a driving force of good fortune and good governance.

First, the study’s findings speak to the complexity of co-creation where, to the uninitiated, it appears as a messy concept to implement and practice. The “messiness” of co-creation occurs on several levels, namely within the process of “doing” co-creation, where participants (subtle and intangible process) and the relationship between researchers and TSO stakeholders. There is messiness in the process when co-activities overlap, with no clear line separating each activity from the next. Across the four phases of the research cycle, researchers and TSO stakeholders engaged in multiple rounds of creating ideas and designing solutions. Co-creation’s iterative design is in direct contrast to the linear and systematic process commonly associated with traditional research [ 26 ]. While the straightforwardness of a traditional research approach has its appeal in being researcher-led and systematic, co-creation has the advantage of its reiterative processes of co-creation, which work to resolve any methodological problems. In describing the implementation and evaluation of the program, the TSO stakeholders expressed this ‘messiness’ of the process and the management of stakeholder relationships.

For those TSO stakeholders participating in the collaborative discussion, they perceived the process of program implementation and evaluation “ through the lens of experience ”. As the project evolved, we learned and became acutely aware of the differing priorities, an issue highlighted in the data collection process. Stakeholder relationships also encountered complexity in managing power and equity amongst researchers and TSO stakeholders. In line with previous studies [ 27 ], the involvement and participation of researchers and TSO stakeholders across the four co-creation research cycles varied at different times and for different tasks. As evidenced in this study, the greater the level of investment in the program by TSO stakeholders, the higher the rate of participation.

Moreover, stakeholders who invested more in co-creation had increased knowledge and expertise about program evaluation, which helped drive innovation. This finding extends the work of previous stakeholder research, claiming that stakeholder commitment to program evaluation positively impacted the utilisation of evaluation findings [ 27 ] and consolidated their understanding of their roles in practising co-creation [ 28 ]. The quality of the collaborative partnership was dependent on the building of mutual trust [ 28 ]. Trust formation encouraged flexibility and adaptability to change for those involved in the program. However, it could be theorised that the “messiness” of co-creation may, over time, dissipate as researchers and TSO stakeholders become more proficient at implementing the co-creation framework and/or applying it to other contexts settings. Identification of these challenges has provided a solid foundation for re-assessing the proposed co-creation framework and extending it by including critical activities of each stage, namely roles members may undertake and, importantly, measurable outcomes from each stage so that continuous monitoring of the progress can be undertaken. As there is no temporal limitation, nor does the model require a linear progression, measurable outcomes from each stage may assist future application of this model to assess where further work is required in these collaborative activities. Given the findings from this case study reported on the application of the co-creation framework, a revised, updated framework is presented in Table  2 , which includes the additional elements and critical tasks associated with each component. Furthermore, this framework is presented in a format that can be used for other interventions for further testing and refinement.

Good fortune and good governance

The findings raise the critical question of whether good fortune or good governance led to the successful implementation of co-creation in this example. This paper argues that it is both. Good fortune suggests the outcome was generated by luck, with stakeholders being “in the right place at the right time”. However, given that the researchers and stakeholders shared a pre-co-creation relationship, the primary driver of good fortune was the social capital created outside the co-creation framework. These connections appeared to generate favourable conditions for speeding up the process of forming collaborative partnerships between researchers, TSO stakeholders and peer workers with lived experience.

While social capital plays a key role, various mediating factors in this study appeared to contribute to increased levels of trust and reciprocity. These included (1) the complementary expertise and skills of each researcher and stakeholder, (2) the level of commitment by researchers and stakeholders to continue the evaluation despite facing critical events (COVID-19 pandemic, changes in key staff, loss of funding), (3) regular contact through frequent meetings and correspondence and, (4) the sharing of explicit and tacit knowledge resulting in greater collaborative reciprocity. These findings are consistent with those identified in research on trust-based social capital, where such factors lead to higher levels of trust and innovative practice [ 29 ]. Although some claim that trust-based collaboration can be developed from the ground up [ 30 ], other evidence suggests that trust takes longer to crystallise when social capital is reduced [ 29 ]. A lack of social connection between stakeholders can also lead to increased conflict, disrupting the implementation process [ 29 ]. Besides trust and social connection, co-creation is successful when good management and research governance are practised. Studies on the dynamics of research collaboration [ 31 ] suggest that good management involves committing to achieving project goals and outcomes and ensuring stakeholders are involved in decision-making processes [ 32 ]. As evidenced in the transcripts of this case study, the presence of natural disasters and pandemics created challenges to collecting data and meeting project deadlines. Regardless, the flexible nature of researchers and stakeholders and frequent communication allowed for achieving goals. Studies on good management also perceive regular communication between researchers and stakeholders as important as collaborative relationships. While the researchers and TSO stakeholders were not necessarily sharing the same physical space, collaboration occurred virtually through online meetings or by phone and email. Although, the disadvantage of the distance between collaborators makes it challenging to engage in casual conversations that generate new ideas, good management and attention to the virtual space inhabited by researchers and TSO stakeholders have enabled relationships to evolve.

Strengths and limitations

The methodological rigour built into the case study is a strength of the paper. Over the four year course of the project, researchers, funders and TSO stakeholders, including peer workers with lived experience, regularly discussed, through telephone conversations and formal meetings, ongoing issues relating to the implementation and evaluation of co-creation of the Eclipse program. The transmission of information between researchers and stakeholders worked to triangulate or corroborate the findings, a process known as member/peer or peer checking [ 33 ]. In qualitative research, member/peer checking enhances validity and trustworthiness in the case study process by reducing the possibility of researcher bias and improving the validity of the case study process [ 33 ]. Also, verifying results and detecting bias were made more accessible by triangulating evidence from multiple sources used in this case study [ 34 ]. Researchers should consider the generalisability of the findings to other suicide prevention programs with caution. The specificity of the case and the participant sample size may limit its applicability to other TSOs. However, TSOs delivering health interventions are encouraged to implement co-creation to improve generalizability.

Implications for professional practice, policy and research

For TSO practitioners delivering mental health and suicide prevention services and policymakers, co-creation offers several benefits. Adopting a co-creation framework satisfies a global “whole of government” initiative where the government sees the benefit of forming multisector collaborations between researchers, TSOs and peer workers with lived experience [ 35 ]. By collaborating, researchers may be able to reduce the gap between knowledge creation and its implementation into practice.

Unlike many other translation models, a central principle of the co-creation framework is embedding the process of data collection into the routine delivery of services. TSO stakeholders may improve the quality of services by simultaneously implementing the new knowledge as it’s developed. Evidence suggests that integrating data collection and service delivery may lead to higher stakeholder participation in the research process and increased investment by TSO stakeholders in designing and delivering those programs [ 36 ]. As indicated in this study, co-creation allows for flexibility and creativity in its design by readily adapting to the changing needs of the TSO environment [ 10 ]. For policymakers, one key benefit of co-creation is the potential for an increase in the number of TSO evaluations producing high-quality evidence. Governments rely on the production of knowledge to support informed decisions and policy planning around health services and interventions [ 17 ]. An increase in evaluations may produce a higher rate of relevant and timely evidence for implementation into policy. Finally, for researchers, this study contributes more than a theoretical approach or an empirical observation to the advancement of knowledge in co-creation and collaborative practice. By applying the framework to a TSO delivering suicide prevention services, we have offered a pragmatic, step-by-step approach to implementing the framework and identifying improvement areas. For instance, ensuring TSO practitioners share a common language and meaning with researchers around the definition of core concepts such as co-ideation and co-creation. While terms such as co-ideation were not necessarily recognisable by stakeholders at a theoretical level, evidence from the shared discussion between researchers and stakeholders indicates, at a practical level, some semblance of understanding by stakeholders of popular concepts such as co-design. Misunderstandings around the definition of the co-creation framework can impede the capacity of researchers and stakeholders to engage in an informed critical discussion on co-creation and its four collaborative processes. Building awareness amongst mental health and suicide prevention stakeholders is necessary to implement the co-creation framework successfully.

As demonstrated in this case study, co-creation is a viable framework for creating new knowledge, increasing research uptake into practice and improving outcomes of health interventions in suicide prevention. There was little evidence, to date, of co-creation’s effectiveness as a new and untested method. This approach—and this example of a four-year project—does not sit easily with current government funding strategies, which promote short-term funding cycles and the production of rapid results. While methodologically, Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) have become the accepted approach to achieving a gold standard, as alluded to in this case study, it is possible to conduct robust research whilst remaining human and pragmatic. Funding structures should consider co-creation’s long-term benefits, particularly in sectors where evaluations are less likely to be conducted, such as TSOs. Further research is required to test the co-creation framework in similar environments to expand our understanding of its impact on stakeholders and effectiveness in improving service users’ outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. All data and materials supporting the findings reported in the paper are located at the University of New England. The audio-recorded consultations are not possible to share because the individual privacy of participants would be compromised.

Abbreviations

Collaborative group discussion

Human research ethics committee

Lived experience

Randomised controlled trials

Public and participant involvement

New South Wales

Third-sector organisations

Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I. Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2009;181(3–4):165–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.081229 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Gonzalez B, Miguel A. Bridging the implementation gap in health systems research: commentary. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:732. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0042-96862004001000006 .

Milat AJ, Bauman A, Redman S. Narrative review of models and success factors for scaling up public health interventions. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0301-6 .

Nowotny H, Scott PB, Gibbons MT. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

Google Scholar  

Lewig K, Arney F, Scott D. Closing the research-policy and research-practice gaps: ideas for child and family services. Family Matter. 2006;74:12–9. https://doi.org/10.3316/agispt.20064001 .

Sanson A, Stanley F. Improving the wellbeing of Australian children and youth: The importance of bridging the know-do gap. Bridging Know Do Gap. 2010;3.

Bach-Mortensen AM, Montgomery P. What are the barriers and facilitators for third-sector organisations (non-profits) to evaluate their services? A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0681-1 .

Robinson T, Bailey C, Morris H, Burns P, Melder A, Croft C, et al. Bridging the research–practice gap in healthcare: a rapid review of research translation centres in England and Australia. Health Syst Policy Res. 2020;18(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00621-w .

Horsfall J, Cleary M, Hunt GE. Developing partnerships in mental health to bridge the research–practitioner gap. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2011;47(1):6–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6163.2010.00265.x .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pearce T, Maple M, Shakeshaft A, Wayland S, McKay K. What is the co-creation of new knowledge? A content analysis and proposed definition for health interventions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(7):2229. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072229 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Werker E, Ahmed FZ. What do nongovernmental organisations do? J Eco Perspect. 2008;22(2):73–92. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.73 .

Kareithi R, Lund C. Review of NGO performance research published in academic journals between 1996 and 2008. S Afr J Sci. 2012;108(11–12):36–44.

Fine AH, Thayer CE, Coghlan A. Program evaluation practice in the non-profit sector. Non-profit Manag Leadersh. 2000;10(3):331–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.10309 .

Australian Government Productivity Commission. Productivity commission, mental health, inquiry report. Canberra: Australian Government; 2020. Report No.: 95 Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/mental-health/report .

Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamian T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community‐based health services: literature review and case study. Milbank Q. 2016;94(2):392–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197 .

Kozak A. The effectiveness of the public services co-production process–results of a systematic literature review. Econ Entrep Manag. 2019;6(2):76–88. https://doi.org/10.23939/eem2019.02.076 .

Pearce T, Maple M, Wayland S, McKay K, Woodward A, Brooks A, et al. A mixed-methods systematic review of suicide prevention interventions involving multisectoral collaborations. Health Res Policy Sys. 2022;20(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00835-0 .

Lifeline Mid Coast. Lifeline mid coast 2022. Available from: https://lifelinemidcoast.org.au/ .

Maple M, Wayland S, Pearce T, Bhullar N. Protocol for the evaluation of a non-clinical, community based facilitated support group for people who have previously attempted suicide. ResearchGate. 2020. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33587.58403 .

Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services. Manual for support groups for suicide attempt survivors Los Angeles, CA.: Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services; 2014. Available from: https://zerosuicide.edc.org/resources/resource-database/manual-support-groups-suicide-attempt-survivors .

Merriam S. B. Case study research in education: a qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass; 1988.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100 .

Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE guide no. 131. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):846–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030 .

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .

Hieronymi A. Understanding systems science: a visual and integrative approach. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2013;30(5):580–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.221526 .

Roberts L. Community-based participatory research for improved mental healthcare: a manual for clinicians and researchers. London: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.

Snijder M, Shakeshaft A, Wagemakers A, Stephens A, Calabria B. A systematic review of studies evaluating Australian indigenous community development projects: the extent of community participation, their methodological quality and their outcomes. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):1154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2514-7 .

Dong B, Evans KR, Zou S. The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36(1):123–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0059-8 .

Filieri R, McNally RC, O’Dwyer M, O’Malley L. Structural social capital evolution and knowledge transfer: evidence from an Irish pharmaceutical network. Ind Mark Manag. 2014;43(3):429–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.011 .

McKnight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL. Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad Manag Rev. 1998;23(3):473–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/259290 .

Bozeman B, Gaughan M, Youtie J, Slade C, Rimes H. Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: dispatches from the front lines. Sci Public Policy. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv035 .

Oliver K, Kothari A, Mays N. The dark side of co-production: Do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research? Health Res policy Syst. 2019;17(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3 .

Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1802–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870 .

Yin RK. Applications of case study research California. USA: SAGE Publications; 2012.

Pearce T, Maple M, Wayland S, McKay K, Woodward A, Shakeshaft A. Evidence of co-creation practices in suicide prevention in government policy: a directed and summative content analysis. BMC Public Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14313-3 .

Okul E, Nyonje R. Examining stakeholder involvement in the evaluation process for program improvement. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci. 2020;9:179–91. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i5.835 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

As this project reports on a collaboration of PPI, including authors with lived experience, TSO stakeholders, peer workers with lived experience and funders for their engagement in a sometimes complex and challenging collaboration, we sincerely thank them for their contribution towards the implementation of co-creation into the Eclipse program, for their participation in this study and their commitment to this project.

This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship and funding from the Lifeline Research Foundation, Australia.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia

Tania Pearce, Myfanwy Maple & Sarah Wayland

Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Kathy McKay

Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick Campus, 22-32 King Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia

Anthony Shakeshaft

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contributions to the paper as follows: The authors confirm contributions to the paper as follows: TP, MM and AS conceptualisation; TP methodology; SW and MM, data collection; TP, analysis and interpretation of results; TP, writing-original draft. All authors contributed to the review of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tania Pearce .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was approved by New England’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HE16-219). All methods were performed in accordance with the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki. All participants completed an informed written consent form as a requirement for study participation. Participation was not incentivised.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pearce, T., Maple, M., McKay, K. et al. Co-creation of new knowledge: Good fortune or good management?. Res Involv Engagem 8 , 65 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00394-2

Download citation

Received : 16 June 2022

Accepted : 22 October 2022

Published : 29 November 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00394-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Co-ideation
• Co-implementation
• Co-evaluation
• Multisectoral
• Collaboration
• third sector organisations
• Patient and public involvement

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]

The Research Whisperer

Just like the thesis whisperer – but with more money, what is research.

We all know what research is – it’s the thing we do when we want to find something out. It is what we are trained to do in a PhD program. It’s what comes before development.

The wonderful people at Wordnet define research as

Noun: systematic investigation to establish facts; a search for knowledge. Verb: attempt to find out in a systematically and scientific manner; inquire into.

An etymologist might tell us that it comes from the Old French word cerchier , to search , with re- expressing intensive force. I guess it is saying that before 1400 in France, research meant to search really hard.

If I was talking to a staff member at my university, though, I would say that searching hard was scholarship . The difference? Research has to have an element of discovering something new, of creating knowledge. While a literature search is one important part of a research project, it isn’t research in and of itself. It is scholarship.

Don’t take my word for it. In Australian universities, we define research this way:

Research is defined as the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it leads to new and creative outcomes. This definition of research is consistent with a broad notion of research and experimental development (R&D) as comprising of creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humanity, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications This definition of research encompasses pure and strategic basic research, applied research and experimental development. Applied research is original investigation undertaken to acquire new knowledge but directed towards a specific, practical aim or objective (including a client-driven purpose).

Drawn from the 2012 Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) specifications for the collection of 2011 data .

What research sounds like

Sometimes, however, you don’t want to talk about ‘Research ‘ . If you are applying to a philanthropic foundation, for example, they may not be interested in your new knowledge so much as the impact that your work will have, your capacity to help them to solve a problem. Industry partners may also be wary of the ‘R’ word. “Don’t bank your business on someone’s PhD”, they will say (and I would wholeheartedly agree).

This creates something of a quandary, as the government gives us money based on how much research income we bring in. They audit our claims, so everything we say is research has to actually be research. So, it helps to flag it as research, even if you don’t say it explicitly.

Instead, you might talk about innovation , or about experimentation . You could describe the element of risk associated with discovery . Investigation might lead to analysis . There might be tests that you will undertake to prove your hypothesis . You could just say that this work is original and has never been done before. You could talk about what new knowledge your work will lead to.

You might describe a new method or a new data source that will lead to a breakthrough or an incremental improvement over current practice. You could make it clear that it is the precursor to development , in the sense of ‘research and development’.

It really helps if you are doing something new .

What research looks like

Sometimes, it isn’t what you say, but what you do. If your work will lead to a patent, book or book chapter, refereed journal article or conference publication, or an artwork or exhibition (in the case of creative outputs), then it almost always fulfills the definition no matter what you call it.

What research isn’t

Sometimes, you can see a thing more clearly by describing what it isn’t.

Research isn’t teaching. Don’t get me wrong – you can research teaching, just like you can research anything else. However, teaching itself is generally regarded as the synthesis and transfer of existing knowledge. Generally, the knowledge has to exist before you can teach it. Most of the time, you aren’t creating new knowledge as you teach. Some lecturers may find that their students create strange new ‘knowledge’ in their assignments, but making stuff up doesn’t count as research either.

Research isn’t scholarship. As I said at the start, a literature search is an important aspect of the research process but it isn’t research in and of itself. Scholarship (the process of being a scholar) generally describes surveying existing knowledge. You might be looking for new results that you hadn’t read before, or you might be synthesizing the information for your teaching practice. Either way, you aren’t creating new knowledge, you are reviewing what already exists.

Research isn’t encyclopaedic. Encyclopedias, by and large, seek to present a synthesis of existing knowledge. Collecting and publishing existing knowledge isn’t research, as it doesn’t create new knowledge.

Research isn’t just data-gathering. Data-gathering is a vital part of research, but it doesn’t lead to new knowledge without some analysis, some further work. Just collecting the data doesn’t count, unless you do something else with it.

Research isn’t just about methodology. Just because you are using mice, or interviewing people, or using a High Performance Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC) doesn’t mean you are doing research. You might be, if you are using a new data set or using the method in a new way or testing a new hypothesis. However, if you are using the same method, on the same data, exploring the same question, then you will almost certainly get the same results. And that is repetition, not research.

Research isn’t repetition, except in some special circumstances. If you are doing the same thing that someone else has already done, then generally that isn’t research unless you are specifically trying to prove or disprove their work. What’s the difference? Repeating an experiment from 1400 isn’t research. You know what the result will be before your start – it has already been verified many times before. Repeating an experiment reported last year probably is research because the original result can’t be relied upon until it is verified.

Is development research? Development (as in ‘research and development’) may or may not be classified as research, depending on the type of risk involved. Sometimes, the two are inextricably linked: the research leads to the development and the development refines the research. At other times, you are creating something new, but it is a new product or process, not new knowledge. It is based on new knowledge, rather than creating new knowledge. If the risk involved is a business risk, rather than intellectual risk, then the knowledge is already known.

Help me out here – what are your favourite words that signal research?

Share this:

26 comments.

currently, im doing postgraduate education for both social science and technological science. i can’t help but to feel slightly amused by your assertion ..

“Don’t bank your business on someone’s PhD”, they will say (and I would wholeheartedly agree).

this is quite true when you’re doing phd for social science. however, if your phd is technologically inclined, the business entity who intends to commercialize it, may have to bank on your research for success.

illustrating this would not be a feat.

are you using google? well, did you know that google was actually a phd research? if they hadn’t banked on page’s and brin’s research, there wouldn’t be google today, would it? presently, it is rumoured that google and microsoft are competing for phd graduates from ivy leagues and what not.

personally, i’ve met a couple of ‘technopreneurs’ who have successfully commercialized their phd research. though they may not be as successful as google, financially speaking, their achievement should not be trivialized.

Thanks, pikir kool.

You are right, of course. I’m a big fan of businesses who provide scholarships for PhD students. It is a great way for the student to get funded, and for the business to get a bit of an edge.

‘Chercher’, the modern French word for chercier means to explore or get. Re-chercher adds the concept of re- or ‘again’ to indicate looking-again, usually on the basis of evidence or experience pointing to the object of the search being in a particular place, hence to ‘search really hard’. French-speaking individuals will ‘rechercher’ a criminal on the run, ‘rechercher’ the more probable destinations of a friend who is out shopping, and so forth. I agree Australian businesses consider PhD graduates are overpriced ‘scholars’ and ‘technicians’ trained to avoid risk, hold similar opinions, and assume as little responsibility for group/enterprise outcomes as possible. What shocks me is your suggestion graduates should misinform potential employers by suggesting they might be able to innovate, discover, and lead the business toward new markets and technologies by simply choosing hot button words. In France, universities are centres of ‘learning’ where individuals experience a rich intellectual environment that the government believes ‘develops’ curiosity, opens up new horizons, tests principles to live by, and rewards leadership. The ‘elitist’ French haut écoles are often criticised by Anglo-saxon countries, but I say the learning environment, which – by the way – focuses less on methodology, reflects human diversity (unique identity). The Australian system is based on an equal opportunity social objective and is funded to produce an intellectual resource pipeline .

Hello Gordon

Thanks for your information on ‘Chercher’.

I was not trying to suggest that anybody misinform anybody else with the use of words, hot button or otherwise, but I can understand how you read it that way.

I wrote that section, in part, as a guide to staff who are trying to satisfy two audiences – the people who are providing funding and the government auditors who are deciding what is counted as research. The easiest way to satisfy the government auditors that something is research is to call it ‘research’. However, in some funding situations, that simply isn’t appropriate. One way forward is to describe the work using words other than ‘research’ that signal to the auditors that the work satisfies the criteria for research.

I’m afraid that I’m not experienced enough with research in France to reply to your comparison of the French and Australian research training environments. I work within the Australian environment, and try to do the best job that I can.

Thank you for this post – very relevant for me right now and thought-provoking. I’m 13 months into my PhD investigating communication designers’ engagement with research and I’m astounded that there is so little consensus in academic literature (not to mention in professional practice) about what legitimate research is.

It seems that any definition or criteria for research that I find, I can also find an example of research that contradicts it. For example, in your post you note “data gathering is a vital part of research” but when I included this in my definition, a highly respected scholar in my field pointed out that research in his own field of Philosophy did not involve data gathering, yet he believed constituted research. So I’m still thinking about it : )

Your philosopher is right, of course. Some researchers are working with ideas and recombining them, reworking them, creating new ideas.

I deal with applied research, mostly, and I guess my definition reflects that.

I would love to see your definition when you are done.

Your article is rad. It shaped the whole concept of research in my mind. And I think that it exactly is a ‘re- search’, where you will be searching the facts again & again, on grass root level, following a sequence of systematic processes to reach a novel & efficient conclusion .

Thanks. Glad I could help, anonymouswailer.

Thank you for the post on ‘What is Research?’ Interesting and useful posts and comments. Since I am considering naming a blog page The Synthesist, I got off on a tangent relating to the words thesis, synthesis, etc. A couple thoughts …

I think you may be undervaluing the function of “synthesis” when it is only referred to in relation to encyclopedic summaries of existing knowledge, I think true synthesis is when 2 or more ideas combine to create a new idea. I also learned, when I served a literacy tutor, that “synthesis” is considered to be a more sophisticated learned literacy skill than “analysis,” which I thought was interesting. We live in analysis culture, creating deep silos of knowledge, with few strong horizontal threads that truly support “learning.”

Interesting comment on French value of learning as the highest human capacity. Not feeling that here in America.

Also, I was hoping to see in your answer of what research IS, a reference to the importance of questions and question formation.

Thanks– Amy

I’m prompted to comment by Amy’s:

After a long time working outside of academia I’m returning to begin a Masters in Disaster Communication and Resilience; I’m still at that early stage of being excited by ideas, and not quite ready to decide on a research topic. What I am sure of is that, in the area of disaster (post-typhoon for example) one of the biggest challenges is that the specialists don’t feel comfortable talking to each other and therefore need the generalist communicators / networkers to listen to what they are on about, develop a general understanding of what they are saying, and link them together with people in other specialist areas whose work might be strikingly different but potentially have enormous potential for synergy/ synthesis.

And I doubt that any research is being done on this.

[…] What is research? by Jonathan O’Donnell […]

This is perhaps a slightly different point of view/perspective from a reasonably long career in applied research, and I am now enrolled in a Doctorate program.

What I find really interesting is pondering where does ‘innovation’ especially in terms of various forms of professional practice or creative endeavour actually come from, if not from ‘research’ as you describe it above? (I often heard and still hear people in industry or the professional practice word using the word ‘research’ to describe an often fairly informal literature search to back up what they have already decided to do in practice – but that is probably another story.)

However, I often wonder where do the ideas for ‘innovation’ actually come from?

When they are drawn from research conclusions (or initially drove the research question) this probably makes that particular research more valuable from a funder point of view.

But it kind of begs the question as to what comes or should come first especially in terms of good applied research.

And then finally, where does creativity come in – especially when deciding what to research, and how to interpret the data and conclusions from the research?

I am off to think of some more concrete examples and to ponder the nexus between research – innovation and creativity.

BTW love this discussion so far!

The nexus between research, innovation and creativity is a great topic! If you are interested in writing it up as a blog post, let me know. We’d be happy to consider it for a guest post on the Research Whisperer.

Jonathan Let me think about it – this has provoked my thinking about the issues but not sure if I am there yet in terms of writing a post about it. I will let you know! Jane

Well, it certainly was interesting to see this comment thread come back to me after three years.

I was about to reply to this person named Amy who said she was going to start a blog called The Synthesist to tell her that I had myself started a blog called Neon Synthesist.

Then I realized it was myself. Strange mirror of time. In 2014, I discovered there was a rock band called Synthesist and named it Neon Synthesist instead, since it tends to be provocative.

There are some fun posts there like “What is an Idea?” and “Why Philosophy Isn’t Dead” and, funding researchers might like, a four-part series called “The Philanthropy Games” … but alas this page will probably go away. No subscribers that I could tell.

http://www.neonsynthesist.blogspot.com

Cheers! Amy

[…] (2012) what is research [online] available from < https://theresearchwhisperer.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/what-is-research/ > [09 march […]

[…] O’Donnell, J. (2012, September 18). What is research? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://theresearchwhisperer.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/what-is-research/ […]

[…] For more discussion on the question “What is Research”, please see “What is Research?”, Study.com, available from https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-research-definition-purpose-typical-researchers.html . See also “What is Research?”, The Research Whisperer, available from https://researchwhisperer.org/2012/09/18/what-is-research/ . […]

I am enriched with the discussions. Thanks.

Thanks, Raton Kumar. I’m glad that you found it useful. Jonathan

[…] For wiser words on research than mine, CLICK HERE. […]

Research is creating new knowledge through systematic investigation and analysis of data. Research leads to development but not in all cases and Repetition of a research already done can be said valid only when we try to prove or disprove it. It sounds great!!!

Research is the effort done by an individual or group of people, to explore something new. It can be an effort to prove the same matter but applying new methods, it also can be done to prove a different findings.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Becoming Literate with Information: How to Do Research

• Let's begin here, shall we?
• How to Do Research
• Evaluating Sources
• Keywords? Subject Headings? What, there's a difference?
• Databases: You mean I can access these from home?
• Magazines vs. Journals: One of these things is not like the other.
• Citing Your Resources: APA
• Citing Your Resources: SBL
• Citing Your Resources: Turabian
• Citing Your Sources: AP

Voice from the Past

"Research is creating new knowledge."

Attributed to Neil Armstrong

• STUDENT SUCCESS CENTER

Library Contact

The King's University Library 2121 E. Southlake Blvd. Southlake, TX 76092 Circulation desk: 817.722.1620 email: [email protected]

Library Hours

Mondays:          10:00 am - 6:00 pm

Tuesdays:         10:00 am - 6:00 pm

Wednesdays:    10:00 am - 6:00 pm (closed for Chapel)

Thursdays:        10:00 am - 6:00 p m

Fridays:             10:00 am - 6:00 pm

Saturdays:        Closed

Sundays:          Closed

Introduction to the Topic

Neil Armstrong's statement above may seem simple enough, maybe even simplistic. It is, however, rather profound and hits the mark dead center with respect to information saturation and the handling there of. When we do research here at The King's or anywhere, we have ultimately asked a question, the answer to which we are seeking. That answer becomes a claim that must be supported both with reasons and evidence. This evidence comes through "information," material that may be mere statistics, facts, other people's "knowledge." Our claim, well supported by a responsible interaction with this information, in effect becomes new knowledge. We see this process displayed most clearly at the highest academic level, the PhD dissertation. Here dissertations must produce "original intellectual contributions in a field of study." [1]

     [1] National Center for Education Statistics, "NCES Handbook of Survey Methods Technical Report," Department of Education, n.d., https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/handbook/sed_keyconcepts.asp, accessed July 27, 2019.

I. Examine Your Assignment and Select a Preliminary Topic.

• The first thing to remember when starting a research project is to READ THE ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS. Many individual students have neglected to closely read the instructions and/or topic of their assignment. After days to weeks of work they find that they have not completed the project simply because they didn’t understand it in the first place. Please, read through the professor’s guidelines carefully, underlining ALL aspects that must be addressed (history, theology, background information, any questions that must be answered). If you are in doubt take the time to ask the professor a few questions; it will be time well spent.
• Select a topic of personal interest to you. You will be spending some time doing research, interest is a factor in diligent research and eventually completing a project with excellence.
• Find a subject that matches the length and breadth of your project. A theological understanding of the Book of Psalms is probably too broad a subject for a five-page paper.
• Be original. Bring interest and personality to your topic. Many students go the easy route and select common and easy to research topics. Be aware that the “low hanging fruit” of common topics have been overdone and may bore your professor. Try to bring something new in order to stand out from the crowd.

II. Preliminary Search and Narrowing of Topic.

• After selecting a topic area and gaining approval, take a look at an overview of the knowledge area surrounding your topic. This is where websites and reference works can be used efficiently. Although they may not end up in your bibliography, encyclopedic websites can give you a 36,000-foot view of your topic that will help you understand how your idea fits in with the big picture of the knowledge area. You will also want to consult print dictionaries and encyclopedias. Do not underestimate the value of a solid biblical dictionary or encyclopedia.
• When reading through an overview article be on alert for any areas of interest. The smaller questions that popup in your head can be converted into a topic for your paper. Within your preliminary research make sure there are enough materials to support a paper of your assignment’s size. Also beware of your topic being too large. If your selection is too broad you will spend much more time than necessary reading all the resource materials.
• The articles within reference materials contain bibliographies which you can utilize to seek out additional sources to use in your project. Additionally, you do not need to worry at this point if your professor prohibits the use of encyclopedic material in your final project. The preliminary search is for your information, to narrow your topic, and to find additional resources. You do not have to use quotations of this material in your actual project.

III. A Deeper Search on Topic.

• Library: The TKU library has over 18,000 books in it’s on site circulation collection. To search these volumes please see the online library catalogue at: http://ku.trimagic.com.au/opac/WQOPACAdv.htm You can also get to the library catalogue through the Blackboard Library page and the Student Portal library page. Please use SOLA in the location box in order to only search on ground books. If you would like to search our off-site storage, simply search without filling in the location box. For more information on a search using keywords please see the “Keywords?” tab on the library libguide.
• Online eBook, Journal, and Periodical databases. The TKU Library has several databases you can search for information. EBSCOhost indexes over 1,400 journal titles. An index lists basic bibliographic information. In addition to indexing, this service now provides full text articles in approximately ninety religious and theological journal titles. This service also offers eBooks for searching and reading online as well as audio books that may be searched, sampled and downloaded. Proquest provides indexing, abstracting, and many full-text articles for not only religious periodicals (journals and magazines), but for periodicals in the fields of the humanities, psychology, and multicultural studies (over 2000 titles). All of these resources can be found on the Blackboard Library page and the Student Portal Library Page.
• Online dissertation/thesis database. The TKU Library recommends ProQuest Open Source Dissertations and Thesis at:  https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/search.html This resource allows you free access to up to the minute research being done at schools around the country.

IV. Evaluate Your Sources.

• When was the information published or posted?
• Has the information been revised or updated?
• Does your topic require current information, or will older sources work as well?
• Are the links functional?
• Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
• Who is the intended audience?
• Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
• Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
• Would you be comfortable citing this source in your research paper?
• Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
• What are the author’s credentials or organizational affiliations?
• Is the author qualified to write on the topic?
• Is there contact information, such as a publisher or email address?
• Where does the information come from?
• Is the information supported by evidence?
• Has the information been reviewed or referenced?
• Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
• Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?
• Are there spelling, grammar or typographical errors?
• What is the purpose of the information? Is it to inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?
• Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
• Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda?
• Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
• Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional or personal biases?

[1] Meriam Library—California State University, Chico, https://library.csuchico.edu/help/source-or-information-good

V. Take Notes on Your Sources.

• Taking notes on all of your materials is essential, as the number of sources you consult in your research might be quite numerous. There are many different methods; choose the one that works for you and be consistent. Be sure to document all the sources you consult, even if there is a chance you might not use it; better safe than sorry. Remember to record the author, title, publisher, URL, and any other information that will be needed later when creating a bibliography. Many plagiarism incidents are accidentally caused by messy or inconsistent notes.
• Clearly distinguish between 1. direct quotations, 2. paraphrased material, and 3. your own thoughts.
• Using a Note Card (see attached "Using a Note Card" image below):
• Using Excel you can create a row for specific topics and/or main points in your outline heading. You can then have Excel automatically sort through your sources for that particular heading. It will give you all the sources and quotes you have in line with that heading (See attached "Excel 1" and "Excel 2" below):
• Using a Note Card

VI. Cite Your Sources.

• Currently TKU uses three different citation styles, Chicago/Turabian, SBL, and APA. For more information on using these styles please see their individual tab on the libguide.

VII. Edit and Proofread.

• Please do not skip these final steps; all your hard work can be for naught if do not check a final time for surplus material, grammar, and spelling. Also, make sure to read the project instruction a final time to ensure all aspects were covered.
• << Previous: Let's begin here, shall we?
• Next: Evaluating Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 11, 2021 5:28 PM
• URL: https://tku.libguides.com/InformationLiteracy

Research is creating new knowledge

What's the meaning of this quote?

Quote Meaning: This quote emphasizes the transformative power of research in expanding our understanding of the world. It conveys the idea that research is not just about acquiring existing knowledge, but about generating new insights, discoveries, and understanding. It underscores the creative and innovative nature of research, as it involves curiosity, exploration, and pushing the boundaries of what is known. It highlights the importance of research in advancing human knowledge and driving progress in various fields, from science and technology to arts and humanities.

Who said the quote?

The quote "Research is creating new knowledge." was said by Neil Armstrong ( Bio / Quotes ) . Neil Armstrong was an American astronaut and the first person to walk on the moon.

What's the quote's message?

The quote "Research is creating new knowledge" refers to the inherent function and transformative power of research. The message behind this quote is that through the process of research, we do not merely uncover or discover pre-existing knowledge, but we actively generate new insights and understanding.

Research, in this context, could be understood as a creative act. Just like an artist brings a new painting into existence or a composer crafts a new piece of music, a researcher creates new knowledge. They formulate hypotheses, conduct experiments or investigations, analyze data, and draw conclusions. Each of these stages is essential in creating something that didn't exist before - a new piece of knowledge.

Moreover, this quote emphasizes the ongoing, dynamic nature of knowledge. It is not static, and it's not finite. Instead, it's constantly being expanded, refined, and even overturned. Our understanding of the world evolves as we continue to research, ask questions, and challenge existing notions.

Therefore, the quote prompts us to respect and appreciate the process of research. It inspires curiosity and critical thinking, fostering a recognition that each question we ask and answer contributes to the larger tapestry of human knowledge.

Is there a historical example that illustrates the message of the quote?

There are numerous historical examples that demonstrate the quote "Research is creating new knowledge." One of these is the discovery of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick.

In the early 20th century, the precise details about the structure and function of DNA were still a mystery. Researchers knew DNA was integral to genetics, but the exact structure and how it influenced genetic inheritance were unclear.

In the early 1950s, Watson and Crick began their research at the University of Cambridge to solve the DNA mystery. They combined different areas of knowledge including molecular biology, chemistry, and X-ray crystallography data (notably Rosalind Franklin's work) to understand the molecule better.

After long-term dedicated research, in 1953, they proposed the double helix model of DNA — a two-stranded helix with nucleotide bases paired in the center. This model suggested a plausible mechanism for DNA replication, thereby revolutionizing the understanding of genetic inheritance.

This new knowledge created by their research allowed for a variety of advancements in biotechnology, medical genetics, forensics, and more, illustrating the idea that "Research is creating new knowledge."

It's worth noting that research doesn't always have to result in a breakthrough to be valuable. Small, incremental additions to our collective knowledge base are equally important and pave the way for future discoveries.

Chief Editor

Uncover Your WHY

Read The Art of Fully Living

Set Better Goals

Uplevel Your Game

Explore The Roadmaps

Explore The All-Access

Enter your email below. It’s FREE

What is Research

research is defined as: “A investigation ( i.e., the gathering and analysis of information) designed to develop or contribute to knowledge.” The National Academy of Sciences states that the object of research is to “extend human knowledge of the physical, biological, or social world beyond what is already known.” Research is different than other forms of discovering knowledge (like reading a book) because it uses a systematic process called the Scientific Method . The Scientific Method consists of observing the world around you and creating a about relationships in the world. A hypothesis is an informed and educated prediction or explanation about something. Part of the research process involves testing the , and then examining the results of these tests as they relate to both the hypothesis and the world around you. When a researcher forms a hypothesis, this acts like a map through the research study. It tells the researcher which factors are important to study and how they might be related to each other or caused by a that the researcher introduces (e.g. a program, treatment or change in the environment). With this map, the researcher can interpret the information he/she collects and can make sound conclusions about the results. Research can be done with human beings, animals, plants, other organisms and inorganic matter. When research is done with human beings and animals, it must follow specific rules about the treatment of humans and animals that have been created by the U.S. Federal Government. This ensures that humans and animals are treated with dignity and respect, and that the research causes minimal harm. No matter what topic is being studied, the value of the research depends on how well it is designed and done. Therefore, one of the most important considerations in doing good research is to follow the design or plan that is developed by an experienced researcher who is called the (PI). The PI is in charge of all aspects of the research and creates what is called a (the research plan) that all people doing the research must follow. By doing so, the PI and the public can be sure that the results of the research are real and useful to other scientists.                                                                                                                                               Leading in Context Unleash the Positive Power of Ethical Leadership What is Research? By Linda Fisher Thornton What is research? The answer depends on your perspective. Some people believe the definition is very narrow, and only if you “do it right” in the scientific sense does it meet the requirements of proper research. Others believe that research includes paying attention to messages from all areas of our lives and using that information to achieve insight and understanding. I believe that there is merit in both interpretations. Here are some very interesting thoughts on how to define research: “If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”     Albert Einstein “What is research but a blind date with knowledge?”     Will Harvey “In true education, anything that comes to our hand is as good as a book: the prank of a page-boy, the blunder of a servant, a bit of table talk – they are all part of the curriculum.”    Michel de Montaigne “Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying without a purpose.” Zora Neale Hurston “Research is creating new knowledge.” Neil Armstrong Why is this question important? I believe that we gain understanding of sub-parts and elements of a problem by doing formal scientific research. Limiting ourselves to formal research within one field, though, may not provide insights into solutions that work well with interconnected systems and globally compounded problems.  When I was researching my book 7 Lenses , I didn’t find a clear definition of ethical leadership by looking within the discipline of ethical leadership. Only by looking across multiple disciplines and noticing patterns and trends was I able to find clarity.  The word “research” originated in the late 1500’s and originally meant “to seek” or “to search” in Middle French (dictionary.com).  I believe that we gain an understanding of the whole picture by taking in a broad array of information in the course of our lives. Without that kind of awareness, we are destined to understand the small pieces but miss the connections and the greater meaning.  Think about how you would define “research.” Is your definition narrow, broad or both?  Prepare Your Leaders For Ethical Leadership Future – Help Them Learn To See Through 7 Lenses®.  LeadinginContext.com   Unleash the Positive Power of Ethical Leadership® © 2015 Leading in Context LLC Share this: Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Reblogged this on Gr8fullsoul . Join the Conversation! This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed . Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now. Subscribe Subscribed Copy shortlink Report this content View post in Reader Manage subscriptions Collapse this bar Encyclopedia Writing with artificial intelligence. © 2023 by Joseph M. Moxley - Professor of English - USF Research refers to a systematic investigation carried out to discover new  knowledge , test existing  knowledge claims, solve practical problems , and develop new products, apps, and services. This article explores why different research communities have different ideas about what research is and how to conduct it. Learn about the different epistemological assumptions that undergird  informal , qualitative , quantitative , textual , and mixed research methods . Table of Contents What is Research? Research may refer to For most researchers, the first step in any research project involves strategic searching to learn what the current and best research, theory, and scholarship is on a topic . scholars create knowledge by engaging in textual research , interpretation , and hermeneutics . scientists create knowledge by engaging in observation and systematic experimentation. Ethnography Participant Observation Survey Research “a systematic application of knowledge toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes” (NSF n.d.) a process,  a research methodology , that follows  the principles of lean design . Key Words: Research Community ; Research Methodology ; Research Methods ; Epistemology Why Does Research Matter? Overall, research is essential for advancing knowledge, solving problems, informing decision-making, fostering innovation, and promoting critical thinking. It plays a crucial role in shaping the world we live in and the future we create. Research allows us to better understand the world around us, from the fundamental workings of the universe to the intricacies of human behavior. By conducting research, scholars can uncover new information, develop new theories and models, and identify gaps in existing knowledge that need to be filled. This knowledge can help students and teachers to better understand the world around them and develop new solutions to the problems facing society. Research helps us identify and solve problems. It can help us find ways to improve our health, protect the environment, reduce poverty, and develop new technologies. Research provides important information that can inform policy decisions, business strategies, and individual choices. By studying trends, analyzing data, and conducting experiments, researchers can help us make better-informed decisions. Research often leads to new technologies, products, and services. By pushing the boundaries of what is currently possible, researchers can inspire and fuel innovation. Research teaches us to question assumptions, evaluate evidence, and think critically. These skills are important for students to develop because they enable them to become more informed and engaged citizens, able to make more informed decisions and contribute to society in meaningful ways. Research experience can be an asset in many career fields, including academia, business, government, and nonprofit organizations. By conducting research as an undergraduate student, students can develop valuable skills and experience that can help them to succeed in their future careers. Types of Research The choice of research methods depends on the epistemological assumptions of the researchers and the practices of a particular methodological community , the research question , the type of data needed, and the resources available. The method is conducted to solve a particular problem for specific situation. Investigators engage in services, applications, and products can we create? The method is conducted to advance knowledge and theory without consideration for commercial gain or practical application. In basic research, investigators strive to understand the most fundamental questions, “who are we? how did we get here? what should we do next? This method involves in-depth exploration of a particular case or phenomenon. This method involves analyzing written, visual, or audio material to identify patterns and themes. This examines the relationship between two or more variables without manipulating them. This research method used to develop commercial services, products, and applications. This type of research aims to describe a phenomenon or situation, usually without attempting to establish cause-and-effect relationships. This method relies on observation and experimentation. Investigators  in systematic ways. Examples: ,  ,  This method involves studying a culture or group of people in their natural environment. This method involves manipulating variables to determine cause-and-effect relationships between them. This type of research is used when little is known about a , and the goal is to gain a preliminary understanding of it. This method gathers   anecdotally or based on convenience, is directed by an investigator’s hunches and curiosity rather than a methodological community’s expectations and conventions., is unplanned, unstructured, and intuitive. This method is similar to experimental research, but it lacks random assignment of participants to conditions. This method involves collecting data from a sample of participants through questionnaires or interviews. This method focuses on the discourse practices who scholars who engage in textual hermeneutics — interpretation & criticism. Examples: ; ; “Usability is the art of making sure that any kind of communication deliverable (e.g. a website, a handbook, a user guide, etc.) is intuitive, easy-to-use , and helps users achieve their goals. Usability is part of the broader discipline known as User Experience Design (or UX), which encompasses all aspects of the look, feel, and information contained in a communication deliverable” ( 2019). Epistemology and Research Communities Investigators across academic disciplines — the humanities, social sciences, sciences, and the arts — share some common methods and values. For instance, in both workplace writing and academic writing , investigators are careful to cite sources , particularly sources that have changed the conversation on a topic to provide evidence for claims (as opposed to opinion or other forms of anecdotal knowledge . Yet it is also important to note that different research communities also develop unique approaches to exploring and solving problems in their knowledge domains. Research communities develop different ways of conducting research because they face different problems and because they may have different epistemological assumptions about what knowledge is and how to measure it. For example, if a researcher believes that knowledge can only be gained through observation and empirical evidence , they may choose to use quantitative research methods such as experiments or surveys . Conversely, if a researcher believes that knowledge can also be gained through subjective experience and interpretation , they may choose to use qualitative research methods such as case study , ethnography or participant observation While there are many nuanced definitions of epistemology , scholars have identified three major epistemological perspectives that inform the works of three research communities The Scholars – aka Scholarship The Positivists – aka Positivism The Postpositivists – aka Postpositivism Research & Mindset Researchers are curious about the world. They embrace openness , a growth mindset , and collaboration . They undertake research projects in order to review existing knowledge and generate original knowledge claims about the topic , thesis, research question they are investigating. Research finds evidence. Research Ethics Researchers and consumers of research are wise to view research claims and research plans from an ethical perspective. Given human nature — such as the tendency to look for confirming evidence and ignore disconfirming evidence and to allow emotions to cloud reasoning — it’s foolhardy to disregard critical literacy practices when consuming the research of others. Ethics are important to undergraduate students as researchers because ethics provide a framework for conducting research that is responsible, respectful, and accountable : Ethics ensure that participants in research are treated with respect and dignity, and that their rights and well-being are protected. As a student researcher, it is important to obtain informed consent from participants, ensure their confidentiality, and minimize any potential harm or discomfort. Ethics ensure that research is conducted with integrity and honesty. This means that data is collected and analyzed accurately, and that findings are reported truthfully and transparently. Ethics help to build trust between researchers and the public. When research is conducted ethically, participants and the wider community are more likely to trust the findings and the researchers themselves. Adhering to ethical standards in research can help students to develop important professional skills, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication . These skills can be useful in a wide range of career fields, including academia, healthcare, and government. Ethical research is a professional obligation. By conducting research ethically, students are fulfilling their obligations to the wider research community. Research as an Iterative, Recursive, Chaotic Process Research is commonly depicted on websites and textbooks on research methods as systematic work (see, e.g., Wikipedia’s Research page). Depicting research as systematic work is certainly valid, especially in natural and social science research. For instance, scientists in the lab working with a virus like COVID-19 or Ebola aren’t going to play around. Their professionalism and safety is tied to rigorously following research protocols. That said, it’s an oversimplification to suggest research processes are invariably systematic. Discoveries have emerged from basic research that have been wildly popular and useful real-world applications . (See, for example, 24 Unintended Scientific Discoveries — the video below). Scientists may begin researching hypothesis A but rewrite that hypothesis multiple times until they find hypothesis Z — something that explains the data. Then they go back and repackage their investigation, following ethical standards, for a wider audience. Ultimately, because research is such an iterative process, the thesis or hypothesis a researcher began with may not be the one the researcher ends up with. The takeaway here is that research is a learning process. Research efforts can lead to unpredictable applications and insights. Research finds evidence. Ultimately, research is about curiosity and openness. The question that initiates a research effort may morph into other questions as researchers dig deeper into the literature on the topic and become more conversant endeavor to make sense of the data/information they have gathered during the conduct of the study. Related Concepts Research methods. Research results— knowledge claims -—are important. But, how researchers claim to know what they know—their research methods and research methodology —are equally important. Information Literacy During the early stages of a writing project, you can identify research questions worth asking by engaging in Information Literacy practices. Using Evidence Learn to summarize,  paraphrase , and  cite sources . Weave others’ ideas and words into your texts in ways that support your  thesis/research question ,  information ,  rhetorical stance . could be organized at under After all, as articulated by the ACRL, addresses how research is . However, we have chosen to present research as a major heading at and not subsume it under Information Literacy because is more commonly associated with being of whereas is associated with the efforts of people Information Literacy is focused on getting and vetting information whereas is focused on producing and developing new products and services. Hale, J. (2018). Understanding research methodology 5: Applied and basic research, PsychCentral . https://psychcentral.com/blog/understanding-research-methodology-5-applied-and-basic-research/ Related Articles: Applied Research, Basic Research Research Methodology Scholarship - The Scholars - Textual Research Methods Recommended. Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact Suggested edits. Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else Your full name Your email address * Page URL needing edits * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Joseph M. Moxley Understand the difference between Applied Research and Basic Research. As an investigator be sure to protect your research subjects and follow ethical standards. As a consumer of research, be mindful of when investigators may be exaggerating results, making claims... Not all research methods are equal or produce the same kind of knowledge. Learn about the philosophies, the epistemologies, that inform qualitative, quantitative, mixed, and textual research methods. Understand how to identify appropriate research methods for particular methodological communities, rhetorical situations, and research questions. Scholarship is not just about memorizing facts or regurgitating information. It’s about developing a deep understanding of a subject, making connections across disciplines, and contributing to the ongoing conversation about... Featured Articles More From Forbes The three rs of learning new things about your business. Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Linkedin Research is creating new knowledge. Neil Armstrong Emotions can also drive business leaders to focus on the wrong organizational areas and ignore problems that are right under their noses. What you don’t know can kill your business. Are you afraid of sharks? Most people would say, “Yes.” Now, how about cows? Are you afraid of them? Most people would say, “No.” But here are the actual statistics . Sharks kill on average only one American a year. Cows? Well, they gore or mutilate twenty Americans a year on average. In other words, you’re twenty times more likely to be harmed by cattle than a shark! There is a primal fear attached to creatures like sharks, mountain lions, and other predators. At the same time, we aren’t terrified of, yes, cows … but also choices we make routinely do harm many of us, such as smoking, eating too much junk food, and repeatedly getting into abusive relationships. The truth is we simply aren’t as logical as we think we are. Econo­mists and social scientists used to believe human beings primarily made decisions based on hard data and not on whims or emotions — a vision they labeled “homo economicus,” which assumes a person will act in their best interests when given accurate information. But that idea was flipped upside down by researchers investigating how we really perceive risk, which can be completely illogical, as noted in our cows vs. sharks example. Best Travel Insurance Companies Best covid-19 travel insurance plans. Business Research: Plugging into Objective Reality Emotions can also drive business leaders to focus on the wrong organizational areas and ignore problems that are right under their noses. What you don’t know can kill your business. To really determine what’s happening within your organization through business research, I advise these three steps: This first step involves doing what’s basically a diag­nostic check of the company’s health. The word “results” can refer to a number of things: goals, outcomes, key performance indicators (KPIs), or milestones. Whatever terminology an organization uses, ultimately it’s all about being able to document those results in an actionable manner. Those results should then be matched up with what the results should be, not just for you, your team, or your entire organization but, more importantly, for your customers, so you can see if you’re falling short or meeting their expectations. 2. Reconnaissance The reconnaissance stage is generally a passive process. You gather data on the people involved just by observing and asking questions. That quest begins with watching how people interact with each other. How is the leadership interacting with the team under fire? How does that team interact with other departments in the company? This is where you want to ask open-ended questions of employees. If they can’t just answer “yes” or “no,” they’re forced to talk for a longer period of time. During this step, sort all the information you’ve gathered to that point into two distinct categories: areas of friction and areas of value creation. As you may have guessed, the former holds the company back, and the latter moves the company forward. Areas of friction in a company represent all the things that are preventing success, both in terms of low internal productivity as well as what is creating customer dissatisfaction. The opposite end of the spectrum is value creation. When you align your business research from inside the company all the way to the customer experience, you can more easily see where there are opportunities to improve value elements. Results. Reconnaissance. Review. The three Rs of business research create the groundwork for lasting success and should be revisited on a regular basis. Business research should be a fluid process — a feedback loop that is constantly informing adjustments along the way, but again, always based in reality. Our intuition is never enough. Reliable information is what tells the real story. And the right business research provides a firm and factual basis for moving forward. Editorial Standards Reprints & Permissions 299 IMAGES Neil Armstrong Quote: “Research is creating new knowledge.” Neil Armstrong Quote: “Research is creating new knowledge.” Neil Armstrong Quote: “Research is creating new knowledge.” Neil Armstrong Quote: “Research is creating new knowledge.” Neil Armstrong Quote: “Research is creating new knowledge.” Neil Armstrong Quote: “Research is creating new knowledge.” (12 COMMENTS Neil Armstrong: 'Research is creating new knowledge.' Research is creating new knowledge. The quote by Neil Armstrong, "Research is creating new knowledge," is a concise yet powerful statement that encapsulates the essence and significance of research. In straightforward terms, this quote implies that research is not merely about gathering existing information but rather about generating fresh ... How research is creating new knowledge and insight How research is creating new knowledge and insight. The pursuit of knowledge and discovery has always been an intrinsic human characteristic, but when new knowledge is curated and put in the right hands it has the power to bring about high value change to society. I work in the research team at the Health Foundation, an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health ... How research is creating new knowledge and insight Generating new knowledge and insight We have a long-standing commitment to research. As I write this, the Health Foundation is currently supporting or working on over 160 research projects. And since 2004 for every £3 of grant funding we have awarded, around £1 has been invested in research and evaluation. All of this work has developed our ... PDF "Research is creating new knowledge."- Neil Armstrong ENGLISH COMPOSITION II "Research is creating new knowledge."- Neil Armstrong Instructor: Professor Renee Drouin E-Mail: [email protected] Office: 458 Armitage Hall Office Hours: Tuesday/Thursday 12:30-1:00, Tuesday 3:00-3:30 (and by appointment) Required Texts Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph W. Williams. 1.2 Ways of Creating Knowledge Remember that "Research is creating new knowledge". Our knowledge, thoughts, perceptions and actions are influenced by our worldview, which is a collection of attitudes, values, tales, and expectations about the world. 3 One's view of the world is at the heart of one's knowledge. There are different methods of acquiring knowledge ... Neil Armstrong Without knowledge action is useless and knowledge without action is futile. Abu Bakr. Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing. Warren Buffett. We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. Unknown. "Research is creating new knowledge." - Neil Armstrong quotes from BrainyQuote.com. The evolution of knowledge within and across fields in modern ... The exchange of knowledge across different areas and disciplines plays a key role in the process of knowledge creation, and can stimulate innovation and the emergence of new fields. We develop ... What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Some research has focused on "how to" co-create, especially in health and community settings ; however, there remains a lack of consensus on the meaning and use of the term co-creation of new knowledge. Many terms are used interchangeably and with ill-defined or no definition as to the meaning behind the terms. Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic review For some authors, innovation is a process wherein knowledge is acquired, shared, and assimilated to create new knowledge that embodies products and services (Herkema, 2003), methods and processes (Brewer & Tierney, 2012), and social and environmental contexts (Harrington et al., 2017). Characteristic of innovations is the creation of value. Basic Research, Its Application and Benefits "Basic research leads to new knowledge. It provides scientific capital. It creates the fund from which the practical applications of knowledge must be drawn. ... intellectual challenges of inquiry-driven basic research and are trained in, or create, new questions and ways of thinking. As these skills are applied to societal priorities, Conceptualizing the elements of research impact: towards ... In traditional academic research, the primary aim has been to create new knowledge, search for meaning, and improve understanding. However, research can contribute to outcomes and realized ... Co-creation of new knowledge: Good fortune or good management? Potential solutions to bridging the research practice gap include collaborative frameworks and models. Yet there is little evidence demonstrating their application in practice. In addressing this knowledge gap, this in-depth case study explored how the co-creation of new knowledge framework and its four collaborative processes (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation) are ... Module 1: Introduction: What is Research? Research is a process to discover new knowledge. In the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46.102 (d)) pertaining to the protection of human subjects research is defined as: "A systematic investigation (i.e., the gathering and analysis of information) designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.". How to add to knowledge In one example, a study can add to knowledge by addressing a gap in the literature. Inherent to any good study is the identification of a research gap. This can be achieved by a systematic review of the literature to identify an area that has not been addressed. This does not require a completely new topic. What is research? Collecting and publishing existing knowledge isn't research, as it doesn't create new knowledge. Research isn't just data-gathering. Data-gathering is a vital part of research, but it doesn't lead to new knowledge without some analysis, some further work. Just collecting the data doesn't count, unless you do something else with it. Becoming Literate with Information: How to Do Research Bring interest and personality to your topic. Many students go the easy route and select common and easy to research topics. Be aware that the "low hanging fruit" of common topics have been overdone and may bore your professor. Try to bring something new in order to stand out from the crowd. II. Preliminary Search and Narrowing of Topic. Research is creating new knowledge The quote "Research is creating new knowledge" refers to the inherent function and transformative power of research. The message behind this quote is that through the process of research, we do not merely uncover or discover pre-existing knowledge, but we actively generate new insights and understanding. (PDF) Research Knowledge Creation Process in Higher Education: A process represent a wide range of input, process, output. and outcome of the scientific knowledge creation. Those. are : (i) idea formation, (ii) research design, (iii) evidence. investigation ... What is Research Research is a process to discover new knowledge. In the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46.102(d)) pertaining to the protection of human subjects research is defined as: "A systematic investigation ( i.e., the gathering and analysis of information) designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge." The National Academy of Sciences states that the object of research is to ... Exploring knowledge creation processes as a source of organizational Therefore, knowledge management research is viewed as a constricted stream of research that does not seek to change existing knowledge but rather to distribute it ... Organizational learning is the process of creating new knowledge for strategic renewal and disseminating it to where it is relevant so that it can be used; ... What is Research? "Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying without a purpose." Zora Neale Hurston "Research is creating new knowledge." Neil Armstrong. Why is this question important? I believe that we gain understanding of sub-parts and elements of a problem by doing formal scientific research. Research Definition the act of creating new knowledge. Researchers in different disciplines have unique and sometimes even contrasting ideas about what knowledge is and how to develop it. For example, scholars create knowledge by engaging in textual research, interpretation, and hermeneutics. The Three Rs Of Learning New Things About Your Business Research is creating new knowledge. Neil Armstrong Emotions can also drive business leaders to focus on the wrong organizational areas and ignore problems that are right under their noses. assignment homework phd report resume review speech thesis