Urgent societal challenges have led to unease in our socio‐cultural interactions and the production systems that underpin our lives. To confront such challenges, collaboration stands out as an essential approach in accomplishing joint goals and producing new knowledge. It calls for interdisciplinary methodologies such as co‐design, an approach capable of bridging multiple expertise. The core activities of co‐design are based on the premise of collaboration and on developing creative social environments. Yet achieving collaboration through co‐design is challenging as people need to understand each other, and develop trust and rapport. We argue that ‘informal‐mutual learning’ is central to building mutual understanding. This article explores how we create spaces for collaboration through co‐design by examining the social environments supporting them. It examines the value of collaboration and its impact upon participants within an action research project conducted in Scotland. We identified Cultural‐Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a suitable theoretical framework. It offers support for holistic inquiry into participation and learning. Its strength was in the attention that it pays to multi‐dimensional human interactions within the social environment. This led to an understanding of the concepts of boundary‐crossing and boundary space examined through a CHAT lens. The findings shed light on four designerly conditions supporting informal‐mutual learning when engaged in collaboration during co‐design situations: choreography and orchestration, aesthetics, playfulness, and quality and quantity of participation. The findings enable us to elaborate on the theorisation of boundary space, a theoretical space for the assemblage of multiple levels of expertise to achieve collaboration.

No abstract

This article explores the role of drawing as a tool for reflection. It reports on a PhD research project that aims to identify and analyse the value that co‐design processes can bring to participants and their communities. The research is associated with Leapfrog, a three‐year project funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). It aims to transform public engagement through activating participation using co‐design practices. The article reports on the analysis of initial research findings arising from a series of workshops with members of non‐profit organisations on the Isle of Mull, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in which co‐design practices were used. The article reflects on the use of drawing used as a tool to capture the author's reflections and her own personal development as a researcher. In this study the term ‘reflective drawing’ refers to the use of drawing as a tool to support the research reflection process within an ethnographic approach to the fieldwork. Reflective drawing is used in two different stages of the reflection process: (1) to record data during fieldwork enabling reflection‐in‐action, complementing field notes and disclosing visual and kinaesthetic learning; and (2) to recall lived experience during the reflection sessions conducted after the observed activity, which helps to establish a bridge between theory and practice. Reflection is defined as an intuitive process that enables the understanding of oneself within a context of practice. Hence, understanding reflective drawing requires exploration of the reflection process.

No abstract

Evaluation is undertaken for various reasons from helping to ensure that objectives are met to identifying success. This paper examines the significance of creative evaluation in a co-design approach. We have identified a major gap in appropriately embedding evaluation into engagement and consultation processes. The study explores the use of evaluation to evidence the value of co-design and consultation. As a part of this we have established a broad framework to gather information and data to build a portfolio of evidence to evidence the difference we are making. From the initial studies we have identified findings that are significant and shared across our partners within their evaluation practice. Throughout the project, our evaluation is embedded in our process. We have proposed an evaluation process, and an evaluation framework which will be used at various stages of the project to capture evidence. At each stage we capture the impact in a meaningful format so it is visible to communities and the researchers, in turn making evaluation a collaborative process. For this purpose, we developed a creative evaluation approach which is innovative, engaging but also designed in an unobtrusive manner.