Tensions as productive forces in coproduced mental health research: an explorative qualitative study

BACKGROUND: In coproduced research, competing priorities among researchers and partners often surface as the work progresses, making such processes rarely tension-free. Although coproduction approaches are increasingly used in mental health research, there is limited understanding of how tensions are managed and how this influences collaboration. Hence, the aim of the study is to explore how tensions emerge within coproduced research by analysing the conditions, interactions, and processes influencing their emergence and management. METHODS: This study was conducted within UserInvolve, a six‑year Swedish research programme involving a national service user organisation as its principal partner. Using an exploratory qualitative design, the study examined coproduction in the programme. Data were collected in two stages: (1) preparatory exploration through six group interviews concerning coproduction processes with subproject group participants, including researchers, representatives from service user organisations, national agencies, service providers (2) in-depth exploration through four group interviews focusing explicitly on tensions with a purposeful sample of participants from stage one. An abductive analytical approach was used, combining inductive interpretations with a deductive framework of four tension types: organising, learning, performance, and belonging. The analysis proceeded through four phases: exploratory analysis, condensation, collective interpretation and final synthesis within the author group. RESULTS: All four tension types were identified, reflecting structural constraints, negotiations of knowledge, competing purposes and questions of legitimacy in collaboration. A finding was that dynamics of power - epistemic, organisational, and relational - cut across all tensions and shaped how participants interpreted situations, negotiated roles, and understood legitimate expertise. What appeared as practical challenges often reflected deeper shifts in authority, knowledge, and expectations. Tensions also acted as generative mechanisms that prompted participants to question assumptions and develop new ways of working. Strategies for managing tensions included adaptive reflexivity, shared learning, renegotiation of roles, and sustained relational investment. CONCLUSIONS: Tensions are inherent to coproduced mental health research and can function as productive forces that support and strengthen collaboration, learning, and epistemic development. Findings indicate that tension‑based approaches require greater attention to power, which fundamentally shapes how tensions arise and are managed. Recognising tensions as potentially generative may strengthen the design and evaluation of coproduced research.