Seeking the views and perspectives of users in research about educational experiences is crucial if we are to improve practice and change lives. However, there is less evidence of reflection on our own rationale and commitment to co-produced, co-created or participatory approaches to research and even less so on the practicalities of how we can do this well. A variety of ways of engaging must be provided, with multiple and varied options for dissemination made commonplace (Laing et al 2017).

Universities across Europe are situated within national and global policy environments and subject to changing relationships with their nation-states. This affects their levels of autonomy, funding mechanisms and the extent to which they have a wider steer, pressure or incentive to reach specific objectives (Goddard 2016). Although countries are subject to similar global pressures, the development of universities has differed, and the extent to which they are encouraged to contribute towards economic, social and cultural impact varies. In addition, funding agencies routinely require an explanation of how the research will benefit society. Knowledge exchange and co-production approaches have therefore grown in importance in recent years (Phipps and Morton 2013). The concept of Open Innovation in European Commission funded research is becoming more central.

Despite this, there is a lack of awareness of the potential benefits of collaboration, and a persistent lack of knowledge about potential partners, and how to establish relationships. There has been a shift in rhetoric that highlights the value of participation (Phillips and Prout, 2003), but confusion exists over which practices are most effective (Todd, 2012; Henricson and Bainham, 2005) and how this kind of work fits with traditional notions of the role of academics. Irrespective of the inadequate evidence base for knowledge mobilization and an under-developed ability to identify impact, co-production can produce social value for universities, researchers, students and their partners, and investments in knowledge mobilization for educational research by universities are valuable (Phipps and Shapson 2009) and should be encouraged.

The notion of boundary organisations bring the skills and expertise of different actors together to enable each to understand the other in a form of ‘boundary crossing’ (Akkerman and Bakker 2011) and supported by ‘boundary experiences’ (Clark et al 2017).  Co-produced work offers opportunities for boundary crossing, but another approach sees co-production as having the potential to create new kinds of research. Such transformational potential necessitates a new way of thinking about research methodology. This requires new ways of doing things, forms of methodology that can encompass this approach, and a process of critical enquiry based on a more dynamic, open ontology, and an epistemology that can take account of multiple constructions of knowledge (Brown et al, 2010). In many research projects, the boundary crossing is discretionary, and an additional element to the research processes rather than an integral part. Additionally, researchers need to develop the skills and capacities which enable them to engage in a more exploratory and collaborative research process, without sacrificing or weakening their own disciplinary contributions.

A partnership between Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Carnegie UK Trust, Newcastle City Council, Children NE, Success4All and the Federation of Small Businesses has conducted a review of current toolkits and guides for the co-production and co-creation of knowledge, and gathered evidence in order to co-produce resources for co-creating research as part of a ‘quadruple helix’. This work builds upon our previous work undertaken as partners in the H2020 ACCOMPLISSH project. The workshop will introduce participants to current debates in the field, present recent research by the authors, and facilitate practical exercises that will assist participants in the design and implementation of co-produced research.

We propose to conduct a workshop, providing participants with a 'boundary experience', which will explore the theory and practice of co-production in research. This approach is based on our understanding that any participatory endeavour requires tools or methods to facilitate collaboration, but, importantly, these will only be effective 'once the necessary conditions for participation or collaborative decision-making are in place' (Woolner, 2018: 168). The workshop will consist of three elements. A brief overview of co-production will be given, outlining: • What is co-production? • How is it different from other methodological approaches to research in education? • How does it relate to other participatory practices (e.g. co-design in architecture)? • What is involved in co-producing educational research? Following this framing and exposing of ideas, we will involve participants in a range of activities to extend dialogue and reflection. In small groups we will consider how co-production can assist in the particular cultural and pedagogical contexts that participants are working within. Each group will use a practical tool developed from the research of the authors to explore the ‘life-worlds of the other’, and further debate will explore the implications for co-production. Finally, all participants will come back together to explore the learning developed and reach co-produced conclusions. The workshop is intended to enlighten and inform the research community by inspiring them to consider the contexts in which a co-production approach may be useful and giving them the knowledge , skills and confidence to be able to incorporate it into their work. The workshop will also be suitable for educational practitioners and policy enacters who will be able to explore how they may use this method in their own contexts. We believe a workshop approach is the most appropriate means of enabling participants to fully engage and gain hands-on experience with methodology in a way that would be impossible within a symposia. Our uses of co-production have involved a collaborative approach within our research team. This means that it is more suitable for all authors to contribute throughout the workshop, rather than individual or chaired contributions.

The team continue to work on a set of resources to assist partnerships in co-producing research and knowledge. These resources include bookmarks, postcards, infographics, ‘crib’ sheets of key questions and activities, and a video featuring case studies of good practice. These will be produced both hard copy for distribution, and hosted on a website for partnerships to find, use and hopefully, enjoy. Our work also makes use of a range of participatory research methods that we share through a series of guides aimed at education practitioners and researchers (available here: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/cflat/publications/guides/). We will introduce these resources during the workshop, and participants will have practical tools to take away with them to inspire and encourage them to use co-production as an approach. Participants will learn about the theoretical underpinnings of the methods and then experience the practicalities of completing and designing these methods themselves. The workshop is intended to enlighten and inform the research community. In particular, to contribute to the following outcomes: For educational researchers: • Inspiring them to consider different ways of involving partners in research • Increasing understanding of the role of co-production in research partnerships • Knowledge, skills and confidence to be able to incorporate co-production in their own work For us: • We want to be able to explore with participants the potential applicability of our methods in other European contexts in order to inform our own work in effective partnerships For Children and Young People: • By encouraging researchers to think about using methods that are appropriate to CYP, and the context of the research, we aim to encourage better engagement by CYP and more inclusive practices in order that children can have their voices heard, and ultimately be enabled to contribute in a positive way to social change.

Akkerman, S. and Bakker, A. (2011) ‘Boundary crossing and boundary objects’, Review of Educational Research, 81(2): 132-69. Brown, V.A., Harris, J.A. and Russell, J.Y. (eds) (2010) Tackling Wicked Problems Through the Transdis-ciplinary Imagination. London: Earthscan. Clark, J., Laing, K. Leat, D., Lofthouse, R., Thomas, U. and Tiplady, L. (2017) ‘Transformation in inter-disciplinary research methodology: The importance of shared experiences in landscapes of practice’, IJRME Special Issue, 40(3), 243-256. Day, C. and Parnell, R. (2002) Consensus Design. Abingdon: Routledge Goddard, J. (2016) National Higher Education systems and civic universities, In: Goddard, J., Hazelcorn, E., Kempton, L. and Vallance, P (eds) The Civic University: The policy and leadership challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Henricson, C. and Bainham, A. (2005), The child and family policy divide, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Laing K, Bertosa M, Hriberski D, Hasenfuss J, Shucksmith M, Todd L, Tewdwr-Jones M, Sutrop M, Parder M, Lõuk K, Vabamäe E. Principles for promoting the impact of SSH research by co-creation: key issues in research design and communication. 2017. ACCOMPLISSH H2020 report, European Commis-sion. Phillips, B. and Prout, A. (2003), ‘Issues in the theory of young people’s participation: A discussion brief’, Paper for the ESRC Seminar Series: Challenging social exclusion: perspectives for and from chil-dren and young people, University of Durham, Durham. Phipps, D. and Morton, S. (2013) ‘Qualities of knowledge brokers: Reflections from practice’, Evidence and Policy, 9(2): 255-65. Phipps, D.J. and Shapson, S. (2009) ‘Knowledge mobilisation builds local research collaborations for social innovation’, Evidence and Policy, 5(3): 211-27. Todd, L. (2012), ‘Critical dialogue, critical methodology: Bridging the research gap to young people’s participation in evaluating children’s services’, Children’s Geographies, Vol 10 No 2, pp. 187-200. Woolner P. (2018) Collaborative Re-design: Working with School Communities to Understand and Improve their Learning Environments. In: Ellis, RA; Goodyear, P, ed. Spaces of Teaching and Learning: Integrating Perspectives on Research and Practice. Singapore: Springer, pp.153-172.