Arrangements for collaboration in knowledge production across academia, government, non-governmental organisations, and corporations have several names, such as citizen-science, community-based participatory research, engaged research and hybrid forums. The multiplicity of schemes does not lie only in the high number of names for various versions of collaborative knowledge production. Different scholars also use concepts in multiple ways, depending on their individual choices, mother disciplines, and the problem area in which collaboration occurs. At the same time, there is a lack of analytical tools that address the full range of collaborative research schemes and provide a systematic set of questions to learn about the schemes, challenges, and opportunities. Based on our review of academic journal articles highlighting collaborative research schemes, this paper aims to analyse three parameters which it is fair to say that virtually all arrangements of collaborative knowledge production ought to consider when making decisions, parameters that are often partially missed or misunderstood: (A) epistemic-procedural, (B) exclusive-inclusive and (C) aggregative-integrative. By examining the three parameters, their political theory origins, and how they connect to and challenge existing schemes of knowledge collaboration, we provide analytical tools that could facilitate processes of developing and scrutinising arrangements of collaborative research.