Introduction: Co‐production with communities is increasingly seen as best practice that can improve the quality, relevance and effectiveness of research and service delivery. Despite this promising position, there remains uncertainty around definitions of co‐production and how to operationalize it. The current paper describes the development of a co‐production strategy to guide the work of the ActEarly multistakeholder preventative research programme to improve children's health in Bradford and Tower Hamlets, UK.Methods: The strategy used Appreciative Inquiry (AI), an approach following a five‐step iterative process: to define (Step 1) scope and guide progress; to discover (Step 2) key issues through seven focus groups (N = 36) and eight in‐depth interviews with key stakeholders representing community groups, and the voluntary and statutory sectors; to dream (Step 3) best practice through two workshops with AI participants to review findings; to design (Step 4) a co‐production strategy building on AI findings and to deliver (Step 5) the practical guidance in the strategy.Results: Nine principles for how to do co‐production well were identified: power should be shared; embrace a wide range of perspectives and skills; respect and value the lived experience; benefits should be for all involved parties; go to communities and do not expect them to come to you; work flexibly; avoid jargon and ensure availability of the right information; relationships should be built for the long‐term; co‐production activities should be adequately resourced. These principles were based on three underlying values of equality, reciprocity and agency.Conclusion: The empirical insights of the paper highlight the crucial importance of adequate resources and infrastructure to deliver effective co‐production. This documentation of one approach to operationalizing co‐production serves to avert any misappropriations of the term ‘co‐production’ by listening to service users, stakeholders and other relevant groups, to develop trust and long‐term relationships, and build on the learning that already exists amongst such groups.Patient or Public Contribution: The work was overseen by a steering group (N = 17) of individuals, both professional and members of the public with experience in undertaking co‐production, and/or with some knowledge of the context of the two ActEarly field sites, who provided regular oversight and feedback on the AI process.

This chapter explores the ways in which the roles of citizens and researchers play out in the social sciences. This is expressed by numerous overlapping and related terms, such as co-production and participatory action research, to name but two, and by the different social topics that citizen social science draws attention to. The key question this chapter seeks to explore is what does naming citizen social science as such bring to the fields of citizen science and the social sciences? The chapter explores the different epistemic foundations of citizen social science and outlines the development and provenance of citizen social science in its broadest sense, reflecting on how it is currently practised. It draws on different examples from the experiences and work of the authors and notes the boundaries and overlaps with citizen science. The chapter also highlights some of the key issues that citizen social science gives rise to, emphasising that while citizen social science is a relatively new term, its underlying approaches and epistemic foundations are at least partially established in the social sciences.

Although the built environment (BE) is important for children’s health, there is little consensus about which features are most important due to differences in measurement and outcomes across disciplines. This meta-narrative review was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team of researchers to summarise ways in which the BE is measured, and how this links to children’s health. A structured search of four databases across the relevant disciplines retrieved 108 relevant references. The most commonly addressed health-related outcomes were active travel, physical activity and play, and obesity. Many studies used objective (GIS and street audits) or standardised subjective (perceived) measurements of the BE. However, there was a wide variety, and sometimes inconsistency, in their definition and use. There were clear associations between the BE and children’s health. Objective physical activity and self-reported active travel, or obesity, were positively associated with higher street connectivity or walkability measures, while self-reported physical activity and play had the strongest association with reduced street connectivity, indicated by quieter, one-way streets. Despite the high heterogeneity found in BE measures and health outcomes, the meta-narrative approach enabled us to identify ten BE categories that are likely to support children’s health and be protective against some non-communicable disease risk factors. Future research should implement consistent BE measures to ensure key features are explored. A systems approach will be particularly relevant for addressing place-based health inequalities, given potential unintended health consequences of making changes to the BE.

Children’s health can be affected by the interrelated characteristics of the physical and social environment where they live, including housing quality, neighbourhood characteristics and the local community. Following a systems-based approach, this exploratory project sought to understand how the needs and aspirations associated with the home environment can work in synergy with, or be exacerbated by, other aspects of the local area. The study recruited parents of children aged 2–12 years old from two local authorities in England with high levels of child poverty: Tower Hamlets in East London, and Bradford District in West Yorkshire. Thematic analysis of participant interviews highlighted ten themes and opportunities for improvements. The evidence presented in this research emphasises how environmental quality issues within and outside the home, compounded further by delays in repairs and reduction in service standards, as well as affordability issues, are likely to deeply affect the wellbeing of an entire generation of disadvantaged children whose parents can feel disempowered, neglected and often isolated when attempting to tackle various dimensions of inequalities. Interventions which can improve the quality of housing, and access to space and services, are urgently needed, including initiatives to support and empower families and local communities, especially those prioritising opportunities for action.

The growth of citizen science and participatory science, where non-professional scientists voluntarily participate in scientific activities, raises questions around the ownership and interpretation of data, issues of data quality and reliability, and new kinds of data literacy. Citizen social science (CSS), as an approach that bridges these fields, calls into question the way in which research is undertaken, as well as who can collect data, what data can be collected, and what such data can be used for. This article outlines a case study—the Empty Houses Project—to explore how CSS plays out in practice, and to reflect on the opportunities and challenges it presents. The Empty Houses Project was set up to investigate how citizens could be mobilised to collect data about empty houses in their local area, so as to potentially contribute towards tackling a pressing policy issue. The study shows how the possibilities of CSS exceed the dominant view of it as a new means of creating data repositories. Rather, it considers how the data produced in CSS is an epistemology, and a politics, not just a realist tool for analysis.