Conversation #77

Have you ever found yourself wondering which “co-” concept fits best with your research or project – co-production, co-creation, co-design? And if you have chosen one over another, what guided that decision? Are you confident you understand the differences – not just between the various “co-” concepts, but also across the many other forms of collaboration that exist in research and practice? More importantly, do those differences really matter – and should we even try to define them? If so, then how?

These are the kinds of questions my colleagues and I have been exploring over the past few years, particularly through our research on co-production within the planning discipline. In this blog post, I share some interim findings from our research, reflect on what we have learned so far, discuss where this line of inquiry might lead next – and invite fellow researchers to join the conversation.

In recent years, co-production has become a hot topic in planning research, with a growing number of publications emerging since the 2010s (Lee et al., 2024a). The concept is also widely embraced in planning practice. In Germany, for example, co-production is highlighted in the Leipzig Charter as a core principle for urban development across European cities, with related projects receiving funding from all levels of government.

While there is broad agreement that co-production means actively involving diverse stakeholders in shaping urban spaces, interpretations of the concept vary widely within planning circles. Our own research shows that definitions of co-production in the literature are often inconsistent and vague, with the term frequently used interchangeably with other “co-” concepts (Lee et al., 2024a; Lee et al., 2024b).

One might be wondering: is this really a problem? After all, co-production is not the only concept that suffers from a lack of clear definition. So, why does it matter? Beyond making research on co-production challenging – since varying interpretations make it difficult to compare findings and build on previous work (Brandsen & Honingh, 2015) – our study of case studies has revealed important insights. Co-production naturally involves a diverse group of people, or “co-producers”. When the concept is not clearly defined, it can lead to mismatched expectations and a lack of agreement among those involved. Even when creative methods are used (see Conversation #74), they may not help and can instead slow progress, cause frustration and disappointment, and ultimately affect outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, there is a real risk that the idea of co-production gets misused or even exploited, placing an unfair burden on marginalised communities who contribute their time, energy, and resources without proper recognition or benefit (Schramm, 2024).

What we have also come to understand is that the lack of conceptual clarity is more than just a problem – it is a symptom of a deeper issue. Co-production, originally developed in fields like public administration and economics, has been widely adopted in planning without critical integration. As a result, the concept – shaped by the goals, assumptions, and practices of its parent disciplines – may not fully align with the specific concerns and realities of planning. This disconnect can lead planning scholars and practitioners to selectively adopt whichever version of co-production best fits their immediate needs, rather than engaging with it as a coherent or contextually grounded concept.

To address this, we need to thoughtfully adapt co-production for the planning field. One promising way forward is to study multiple case studies of co-productive planning practices, identifying key characteristics and variations in how co-production is applied. Indeed, as a first step, we identified variations in the degrees of co-production. Rather than seeing co-production as a simple yes-or-no concept, we argue it exists along a spectrum.

To capture this, we developed an evaluative framework outlining different degrees of co-production, which we applied to a case study in Nürnberg in Germany. We then refined the framework further based on empirical insights. Our findings are detailed in a paper currently under review. Moving forward, we hope to apply this framework across multiple case studies to develop a comprehensive taxonomy – and typology – of co-production, using comparative analysis as a key method (Lee et al., 2024c). Using taxonomy and typology to identify different forms of co-production in planning will help address knowledge gaps more effectively.

By thoughtfully adapting co-production within the planning discipline, and bringing greater clarity to its meaning, we can build a stronger foundation for informed and effective action. But this is just the beginning. I invite fellow researchers to join this important conversation – together, we can deepen our understanding, refine the concept, and help shape collaborative planning that truly makes a difference.

References:

Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427-435. Lee, D., Feiertag, P., & Unger, L. (2024a). Defining co-production: A review of the planning literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 39(2), 227-240. Lee, D., Feiertag, P., & Unger, L. (2024b). Co-production, co-creation or co-design of public space? A systematic review. Cities, 154, 105372. Lee, D., Feiertag, P., & Unger, L. (2024c). Editorial. Co-production in the urban setting: Fostering definitional and conceptual clarity through comparative research. Urban Planning, 9. Schramm, S. (2024). Co-production between insurgency and exploitation: Promises and precarities of a travelling concept. Urban Planning, 9.