This manuscript considers the drivers towards inclusive research in the field of disability and rehabilitation; including some of the tools and frameworks that may support its realisation. We, a group of researchers engaged in rehabilitation research from lived experience and 'conventional' (non-lived experience) positions, reflect on our collective endeavours to bring about inclusion in research and specify the systemic factors constraining inclusion in research. We conclude by asking the following: how might we reimagine systems where the mechanisms of research production are in the hands of those impacted by the research, and where are intersectionalities both sought and valued?
Over the past two years, COVID has illustrated how research benefit can be accelerated when need, resources and opportunity coincide. It has also demonstrated the challenges of implementing even relatively simple evidence-based interventions, such as mask wearing and vaccines. The global pandemic response has repeatedly shown that Joe Langley et al 2 evidence use is a complex social process determined by multiple financial, political, ethical, technological, ecological, temporal, and social factors – often in tension with each other. It has underlined the myriad influences on, and gaps between, evidence, knowledge, and action and reminds us of the need for diverse views to inform policy and practice. Co-production is a method that can help weave social factors into the creation and shaping of policy and practice that is easily adopted. Its use has consequently proliferated, and the term has become ubiquitous within research and policy development. Despite this, questions remain regarding what constitutes co-production, what it involves and how to do it well (Green and Johns, 2019), particularly concerning the authenticity of its application and tokenistic use. A previous special issue of this journal (Metz et al, 2019) explored this topic looking at 'Co-creative approaches to knowledge production'. The editors suggested '… a greater focus on the topic of creativity…' and its application in this space would add to the debate and develop it further. This special issue now picks up that thread by setting out to explore: 1. How is creativity applied within co-production? 2. How does such creativity influence the incorporation of evidence into policy or practice? 3. What impact(s) or effect(s) does creativity have in these applications? 4. What are the implications of this, and for whom?
