There are gaps that have been found to exist between practice and research. As a result, Buick, Blackman, O’Flynn, O’Donnell, and West (2016) examined an arrangement in the Australian Public Sector which brought together practitioners and scholars with the aim of improving performance. It is based on this arrangement that a continuum of co-production was analyzed to determine its successes and shortcomings. According to Buick et al. (2016), coproduction denotes a situation in which different parties are engaged in the contribution of substantial resources to aid in the creation of value. Based on the case background of the Australian Public Service, Buick et al. (2016) were able to establish the dynamics that relate to co production partnerships concisely. The coproduction formed the basis of determining the relationships between scholars and practitioners in the design and delivery of public services and goods. For instance, by reframing the performance management, the key enablers and barriers to high performance were identified. As a result, based on the diagnostic approach adopted by Buick et al. (2016), it can be pointed out that the analysis of the relationship achieved the intended mandate that can be applied in the design of future public service partnerships.
The work by the authors is critical in understanding how coproduction can be enhanced to ensure that high performance characterizes the public sector. For example, one of the key enablers in co production was the importance of knowledge. Knowledge or information determines how various stakeholders interact to ensure that there is an improvement in the performance of the public sector. It connotes the importance of co production such as the complementary insights, the access to participants and the integration of theory and practice. A case in point, Buick et al. (2016) noted that coproduction “represents a research strategy in which scholars and practitioners work together at each stage of the research process: identification of research problems, research design, undertaking fieldwork, analyzing and interpreting the data, and disseminating the research findings” (p. 38). Also, throughout the piece, the factors that hinder coproduction are identified such as time constraints, conflicts due to lack of clarity and veto rights and censorship which relate to the terms of an agreement.
It is through the discovered knowledge that it becomes possible to enhance performance across the public sector through joint partnerships between scholars and practitioners. This is critical in dispelling the notion that the two cannot work to produce research. Besides, by reflecting on the case of the Australian Public Sector, Buick et al. (2016) exemplify the points of interaction in the coproduction partnership. Besides, the authors apply the extent of the interaction between the stakeholders to argue out the successful engagement that exists and at the same time denote the difficulties that relate to the arrangement. As a result, the presentation of the cases and the subsequent analysis is critical in the design of future coproduction partnerships. It also forms an essential knowledge and describes the confines in which practitioners and scholars can work together as researchers, i.e. ensuring that research is used to solve real issues affecting the public sector.
The issues presented in the article points out to the fact that coproduction succeeds due to hard work. As a result, in the framing of a study there is the need to consider key factors that are likely to lead to high-performance impediments; hence, undertake measures to maximize the success.
Reference
Buick, F., Blackman, D., O’Flynn, J., O’Donnell, M., & West, D. (2016). Effective practitioner– scholar relationships: Lessons from a co production partnership. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 35-47.