Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35145349›Full record

ArticleQualitative research journal2022

Co-production for or against the university: student loneliness and the commodification of impact in Covid-19.

Fred Cooper, Charlotte Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative research journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Fred CooperWellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Charlotte JonesWellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203109
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis paper explores the dissonance between co-production and expectations of impact in a research project on student loneliness over the 2019/2020 academic year. Specific characteristics of the project - the subject matter, interpolation of a global respiratory pandemic, informal systems of care that arose among students, and role of the university in providing the context and funding for the research - brought co-production into heightened tension with the instrumentalisation of project outputs. STUDY DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Our project consisted of a series of workshops, research meetings, and mixed-methods online journalling between 2019-2020. This paper is primarily a critical reflection on that research, based on observations by and conversations between the authors, together with discourse analysis of research data.

findingsWe argue that co-producing research with students on university contexts elevates existing tensions between co-production and institutional valuations of impact; that co-production with students who had experienced loneliness made necessary space for otherwise absent support and care; that our responsibility to advocate for our evidence and co-researchers came into friction with how the university felt our research could be useful; and that each of these converging considerations are interconnected symptoms of the ongoing marketisation of HE. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper provides a novel analysis of co-production, impact, and higher education in the context of an original research project with specific challenges and constraints. It is a valuable contribution to methodological literatures on co-production, multidisciplinary research into student loneliness, and reflexive work on the difficult uses of evidence in university contexts.

Indexed as

careco-productionCovid-19diariesengagementhigher educationlonelinessmental healthneoliberalismpandemic

Identifiers

PMID35145349
PMCPMC7612342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.