Samskapande processer

- om makt, ansvar och epistemisk rättvisa i deltagande forskning


  • Kristina Bromark Doktorand i socialt arbete vid Stockholms universitet
  • Ylva Spånberger Weitz Lektor i socialt arbete vid Södertörns högskola
  • Sara Erlandsson Lektor i socialt arbete vid Stockholms universitet
  • Ulla-Karin Schön Professor i socialt arbete vid Stockholms universitet



participatory research, participatory design, co-creative processes, implementation, epistemic injustice


Co-creative processes – power, responsibility and epistemic justice in participation research
Participatory research designs are often used to improve the opportunities of marginalized groups to participate in knowledge production. This article is based on experiences from a research project, where participatory design was used to develop and implement user participation for children and young people in out-of-home care. The aim is to discuss opportunities and challenges within different stages of this research project to problematize which participation in participation research involves. Special emphasis is placed on the power relations between researchers, professionals and users through the different stages of the research process – from research design and co-creation to the implementation of co-created knowledge – and to explore how the opportunity maintaining epistemic justice varies among participants throughout this process. This article shows that the conditions for maintaining justice and epistemic justice change when the participatory research process goes from knowledge production to implementation of co-created knowledge. The implementation of knowledge takes place in a context of complex and competing interests, where the responsibility and power of researchers are weakened in favor of the responsibility and power of professionals. At this stage, users' opportunities for power and responsibility is also weakened. This shift of responsibility and power has ethical implications, which users at this stage may feel let down about their expectations of change that were raised in the past stages of the process, are not met in practice.


Nedladdningsdata är inte tillgängliga än.


Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H., Elmersjö, M. & Kings, L. (2021a). Aktionsforskning: möjligheter, utmaningar och variationer. Studentlitteratur.

Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, H., Hultman, L. & Polanska, D. (2021b). Etiska dilemman i deltagarnära forskning. I: H. Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, M. Elmersjö, & L. Kings (red.), Aktionsforskning: möjligheter, utmaningar och variationer. Studentlitteratur.

Branco, R. M., Quental, J. & Ribeiro, O. (2017). Personalised participation: an approach to involve people with dementia and their families in a participatory design project. CoDesign 13(2), 127–143. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2017.1310903 DOI:

Brandt, E., Binder, T. & Sanders E. B-N. (2013). Methods: organizing principles and general guidelines for Participatory Design projects, I: J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (red.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge.

Branom, C. (2012). Community-based participatory research as a social work research approach and intervention approach. Journal of Community Practice, 20, 260–273. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2012.699871 DOI:

Carey, M. (2010). Should I stay or should I go? Practical, ethical and political challenges to ”service user” participation within social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 10(2), 224–243. doi: 10.1177/1473325010362000 DOI:

Elmersjö, M. (2021). Att forska tillsammans med praktiker: om lärande, roller och tillgänglighet i forskning. I: H. Bertilsdotter Rosqvist, M. Elmersjö, & L. Kings (red.), Aktionsforskning: möjligheter, utmaningar och variationer. Studentlitteratur.

Eriksson, C. (2017). Kunskapsutveckling för ökad samverkan inom socialtjänsten kring barn och familj i riskzonen: om participatoriska processer, strukturer och betydelser. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift, (4), 505–516.

Flanagan, N. (2020.) Considering a participatory approach to social work: service user research. Qualitative Social Work, 19, 1078–1094. DOI:

Fraser, N. (2019). Social justice and education. Routledge books. Taylor & Francis.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: power & the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. DOI:

Grasswick, H. (2019). Epistemic injustice in science, I: J. Kidd, J. Medina & G. Pohlhaus (red.), The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice. Routledge.

Grim, K., Tistad, M., Schön, U-K. & Rosenberg, D. (2019). The legitimacy of user knowledge in decision-making processes in mental health care: an analysis of epistemic injustice. Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health, 6(2), 157–173. doi: 10.1007/s40737-019-00145-9 DOI:

Heimer, M., Näsman, E. & Palme, J. (2018). Vulnerable children’s rights to participation, protection, and provision: the process of defining the problem in Swedish child and family welfare. Child & Family Social Work, 23, 316–323. doi:10.1111/cfs.12424 DOI:

Hughes, M. & Duffy, C. (2018). Public involvement in health and social sciences research: a concept analysis. Health Expectations, 21, 1183–1190. DOI:

Jagosh, J., Macaulay, A. C., Pluye, P., Salsberg, J., Bush, P. L., Henderson, J., Sirett, E., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Herbert, C. P., Seifer, S. D., Green, L. W. &

Greenhalgh, T. (2012). Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. The Milbank Quarterly – A Multidisciplinary Journal of Population Health and Health Policy, 90(2), 311–346. DOI:

Kensing, F. & Greenbaum, J. (2013). Heritage: having a say. I: J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (red.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge.

Krieger, T., Floren, M., Feron, F. & Dorant, E. (2021). Optimizing a complex stroke caregiver support program in practice: a participatory action research study. Educational Action Research, 29(1), 37–59. DOI:

Liabo, K. & Roberts, H. (2017). Anonymity in participatory research: is it attainable? Is it desirable? SAGE Publications. Tillgänglig på: <> [Hämtat: 2022-07-04]. DOI:

Mann, A. & Hung, L. (2019). Co research with people living with dementia for change. Action Research, 17(4), 573–590. doi: 10.1177/1476750318787005 DOI:

McCarry, M. (2012). Who benefits? A critical reflection of children and young people’s participation in sensitive research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(1), 55–68. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2011.56819 DOI:

McLaughlin, H. (2006). Involving young service users as co-researchers: possibilities, benefits and costs. The British Journal of Social Work, 36(8), 1395–1410. doi: DOI:

Minkler, M., Salvatore, A.L. & Chang, C. (2017). Participatory approaches for study design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. I: R.C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz & E. K. Proctor (red.), Dissemination and implementing research in health: translating science to practice. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190683214.003.0011 DOI:

Mossberg, L. (2016). Service user involvement in Swedish mental health and social care: an analysis of ideological dilemmas and subject positions in a collaborative context. European Journal of Social Work, 19(5), 716–730. DOI:

Muller, M. J. (2007). Participatory design: the third space in HCI. I: J. Jacko & A. Sears (red.), Human-computer interaction handbook (2nd ed.). CRC Press. DOI:

Muller, M. J., Wildman, D. M. & White, E. A. (1993). Taxonomy of PD practices: a brief practitioner’s guide. Communication of the ACM, 36(6). DOI:

Newbigging, K. & Ridley, J. (2018). Epistemic struggles: the role of advocacy in promoting epistemic justice and rights in mental health. Social Science & Medicine, 219, 36–44. DOI:

Nind, M. (2017). The practical wisdom of inclusive research. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 278–288. doi: 10.1177/1468794117708123 DOI:

Nind, M. & Vinha, H. (2012). Doing research inclusively: bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 102–109. doi: 10.1111/bld.12013 DOI:

Pavarini, G., Lorimer, J., Manzini, A., Goundrey-Smith, E. & Singh, I. (2019). Co-producing research with youth: the NeurOx young people’s advisory group model. Health Expectations, 743–751. DOI:

Robertson, T. & Simonsen, J. (2013). Participatory design: an introduction, I: J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (red.), Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge. DOI:

Rosson, M. B. & Carroll, J. M. (2007). Scenario-based design. I: J. Jacko & A. Sears (red.), Human-computer interaction handbook. CRC Press.

Rudd, D. & Kwang Hwang, S. (2021). Participatory research in a pandemic: the impact of covid-19 on co-designing research with autistic people. Qualitative Social Work. doi: 10.1177/14733250211040102 DOI:

Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: principles & practices. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale

Strier, R. (2007). Anti-oppressive research in social work: a preliminary definition. British Journal of Social Work, 37(5), 857–871. DOI:

Tierney, G., Horstman, T. & Tzou, C. (2021). Youth co-design of responsive digital badge systems: disrupting hierarchy and empowering youth. CoDesign, 17(3), 313–329. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2019.1654522 DOI:

Vis, S. A., Strandbu, A., Holtan, A. & Thomas, N. (2011). Participation and health: a research review of child participation in planning and decision-making. Child and Family Social Work, 16, 325–335. DOI:

Wallerstein, N., Oetzel, J. G., Sanchez-Youngman, S., Dickson, E., Koegel, P., Magarati, M., Parker, M., Richmond, A. & Duran, B. (2020). Engage for equity: a long-term study of community-based participatory research and community-engaged research practices and outcomes. Health Education & Behavoiour, 47(3), 380–390. doi: 10.1177/1090198119897075 DOI:




Referera så här

Bromark, K., Spånberger Weitz, Y., Erlandsson, S. och Schön, U.-K. (2023) ”Samskapande processer: - om makt, ansvar och epistemisk rättvisa i deltagande forskning”, Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 29(3-4), s. 325–344. doi: 10.3384/SVT.2022.29.3-4.4680.