The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality. White seeking to avoid any premature defining of orthodoxy, this article offers a framework to support researchers and practitioners in discussing the boundaries and the features that are beginning to characterise a particular discourse, such as the one that is unfolding around the concept of co-creation. The paper is the outcome of an online and face-to-face dialogue among an international group of scholars. The dialogue draws on Critical Systems Heuristics' (Ulrich, 1994) questions concerning motivation (revealing assumptions about its purpose and value), power (interrogating assumptions about who has control and is therefore able to define success), knowledge (surfacing assumptions about experience and expertise) and legitimacy (disclosing moral assumptions). The paper ends by suggesting important areas for further exploration to contribute to the emerging discourse of co-creation in ways that support critical reflection, improved practice, and provide a basis for debating ethics and quality.

中文翻译：

---

迈向共创研究实践的核心和灵魂：系统方法

共同创造的语言在希望支持循证变革的政策制定者、研究人员和顾问中变得流行。然而，对于一个研究或咨询项目必须具有哪些特征，同行才能认识到该项目是共同创造的，并因此为该标题下不断增长的实践和理论体系做出贡献，几乎没有达成一致意见。这意味着学者和从业者在批判性反思、改进实践和辩论道德、合法性和质量方面没有共同的基础。怀特试图避免任何过早的正统定义，本文提供了一个框架来支持研究人员和从业者讨论开始表征特定话语的边界和特征，例如围绕共同创造概念展开的话语. 这篇论文是国际学者团体在线和面对面对话的结果。对话借鉴了批判性系统启发法（Ulrich，1994）关于动机（揭示关于其目的和价值的假设）、权力（询问关于谁拥有控制权并因此能够定义成功的假设）、知识（关于经验和专业知识）和合法性（披露道德假设）。本文最后提出了进一步探索的重要领域，以支持批判性反思、改进实践并为辩论道德和质量提供基础的方式为新兴的共同创造话语做出贡献。(Ulrich, 1994) 关于动机（揭示其目的和价值的假设）、权力（询问关于谁拥有控制权并因此能够定义成功的假设）、知识（浮现关于经验和专业知识的假设）和合法性（披露道德假设）的问题）。本文最后提出了进一步探索的重要领域，以支持批判性反思、改进实践并为辩论道德和质量提供基础的方式为新兴的共同创造话语做出贡献。(Ulrich, 1994) 关于动机（揭示其目的和价值的假设）、权力（询问关于谁拥有控制权并因此能够定义成功的假设）、知识（浮现关于经验和专业知识的假设）和合法性（披露道德假设）的问题）。本文最后提出了进一步探索的重要领域，以支持批判性反思、改进实践并为辩论道德和质量提供基础的方式为新兴的共同创造话语做出贡献。