Harnessing the Joys and Mitigating the Risks of Doing Co-Research: Reflections on a Study With Survivors of Sexual Violence
Background This article is by lived experience co-researchers and an academic research team. Co-research involves those with lived experience of a topic under investigation. It is an increasingly popular participatory, beneficial form of co-production that improves the integrity and quality of research, and bridges gaps between academics and participants. Co-researchers can conduct interviews, analyse data and disseminate findings which contributes to meaningful, rich data. However, co-research can engender risk. Co-researchers may lack full integration, leading to isolation and exacerbation of power differentials. Risks are heightened when researching sensitive topics, due to exposure to the narratives of participants and potential re-traumatisation. Our approach The aim of this article is to share our experiences of co-produced research on a multi-method study of specialist sexual violence services in England. Five co-researchers with lived experience of sexual violence (SV) interviewed victim-survivor participants, conducted data analysis, and were pivotal in dissemination. As part of a novel design, we employed a specialist, lived experience facilitator to support the co-researchers, which complemented that offered by the academic team. Our learning By evaluating our experience, we highlight the benefits and challenges of co-research. The discussion considers four areas of learning: safety and self-care; empowerment and amplification of voice; accountability and transparency; creativity and joyfulness. Future co-research studies can utilise learning to avoid potential pitfalls and create success. Conclusions By sharing unique evaluation experiences, this article might benefit academic research teams and lived experience co-researchers considering co-research, particularly on sensitive topics. Key to achieving improvements is the linchpin of a facilitator role.
Authors
- Laura Patterson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7586-8080)
- Jenny Harlock (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2300-750X)
- Harriet Smailes (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0430-7053)
- Priti Parmar (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4344-144X)
- Fay Maxted (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1599-1412)
- Deb Smith (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5020-1228)
- Louise Isham (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3660-1073)
- Caroline Bradbury‐Jones (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5237-6777)
- Clare Gunby (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8428-6621)
- Sarah Damery (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3681-8608)
- Julie Taylor (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7259-0906)
- Lucy Hebberts (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8568-2973)
- Fentey B. Scott (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0019-7571)
- Anne-Marie Jones (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7348-8068)
- Amelia Mighty
- Lisa Culshaw-Ward (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3041-2957)
Institutions
- Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
- Imperial War Museum (GB)
- University of Leicester (GB)
- The Open University (GB)
- Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
- Multiple Sclerosis Trust (GB)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University of Birmingham (GB)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Participatory Research Methods
- Published
- 2026-09-18
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.167242
- Primary Topic
- Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00