Commentary prompted by “guidance on co-producing research with family carers”: representation and the demands of democratising knowledge production

Purpose This commentary asks questions about representation and inclusion, especially in relation to the coproduction aim to democratise knowledge production. The purpose of this paper is to encourage broad knowledge of whose views and values are reflected in research and to support robust communication about the democratic arguments underpinning coproduction. Design/methodology/approach This commentary responds to Sutherland and Colleagues’ guidance, specifically to statements on representing views and values, and democratising purposes. It argues for attention to the complex question of representation and for setting a high bar for claims of serving a democratising function. Findings Who is represented and included in research changes over time. Some people with learning disabilities should now be recognised for their research experience as much as their lived experience. Evidence of past exclusions serves to question whether coproduction, as currently conceived, is always the most effective way to democratise knowledge production. Research limitations/implications To make progress in reaching the people whose views and values are underrepresented may mean using a range of collaborative approaches beyond coproduction. Practical implications Researchers might consider the tension between a wish to share the full range of research tasks and the goal of widening participation. Social implications Seeing value in different skills, interests and ways of being matters for people with learning disabilities and families. Originality/value The need to represent different kinds of people with learning disability is often underplayed. Closer attention to diversity in the learning disability community might improve understanding of who is underrepresented and how they might be brought into research.