Co‐ideation and co‐design in co‐creation research: Reflections from the ‘Co‐Creating Safe Spaces’ project

Abstract

Introduction: Numerous frameworks for defining and supporting co-created research exist. The practicalities of designing and conducting co-created research are clearly important, yet the utility of these frameworks and their operationalisation within local contexts and involving a diversity of stakeholders and interests are currently not well-researched.Methods: Using an instrumental case study approach, we examined the utility of a published systematic framework designed to improve clarity about co-creation as a concept and approach. The framework is explored based on the first two processes that correspond to our own work to date: co-ideation and co-design.Results: Our study showed that diverse stakeholders bring challenges regarding research priorities, methods, language and the distribution of power within cocreation processes. Co-creation activities were incremental, adaptable, responsive and made best use of established relationships, structures and collective leadership to meet the competing demands of funders and human research ethics committees, while ensuring the meaningful participation of multiple stakeholders. Conclusion:The findings highlight the iterative, fluid and deeply relational nature of co-created research. Rather than seeking to categorise these processes, we argue that the social relations of research production that provide the structures within which all co-created knowledge is generated are more important drivers of effective knowledge mobilisation and implementation. Thus, close attention to these social relations is needed in co-created research.

‘Keeping it real’: A qualitative exploration of preferences of people with lived experience for participation and active involvement in mental health research in Australia

“…Equal power and space for voice, challenging existing power structures, trust and respect, transparent processes, collaborative decision‐making and active research roles such as inclusion on the research team, advisory group or steering committee, are described as fundamental to meaningful involvement in research. 5 , 10 , 21 , 22 In the current studies, participants further described this as challenging the status quo or dominant models through lived experience involvement, consistent with the principles of lived experience involvement in the delivery of services, development and leadership. 20 …”

“…Aligning with the current findings, they noted that power imbalances and a lack of value for lived experience voices are key barriers to effective involvement. Equal power and space for voice, challenging existing power structures, trust and respect, transparent processes, collaborative decision‐making and active research roles such as inclusion on the research team, advisory group or steering committee, are described as fundamental to meaningful involvement in research 5,10,21,22 . In the current studies, participants further described this as challenging the status quo or dominant models through lived experience involvement, consistent with the principles of lived experience involvement in the delivery of services, development and leadership 20 …”

“…The other central principle that is consistently expressed across lived experience research is the need for equal power, making space for lived experience voices across multiple aspects of research to demonstrate respect and recognition of the value of lived experience beyond being research participants. 5 , 10 , 21 , 22 In a recent scoping review of partnerships between consumers and researchers for evaluation in research, Bird et al 10 describe the importance of shifting from participation to contributing members of research teams, including genuine involvement across different research roles and activities. Aligning with the current findings, they noted that power imbalances and a lack of value for lived experience voices are key barriers to effective involvement.…”

An Analysis of the Great Disruption of COVID-19 Pandemic

“…b) Policy Co-Design: Collaborative research efforts involving policymakers, public health experts, and community representatives to co-design crisis response policies (Fitzpatrick et al, 2023). This approach ensures that policies are not only evidence-based but also resonate with the practical needs and realities on the ground (Walker et al, 2023).…”