The 5R Guidelines for a strengths-based approach to co-design with customers experiencing vulnerability

Abstract

This research note addresses a significant gap in the literature in researching marginalised customers who may potentially experience vulnerability: the need to use a strengths-based approach in designing social marketing research. There has been a (positive) trend in recent decades towards greater inclusion of stakeholders in social marketing research, design and evaluation through the adoption of co-design methods. However, a theoretical issue that has not been adequately addressed within social marketing research (with some exceptions) is that it is possible to use co-design methods in such a way that the language and approaches that are employed serve to further disempower these groups through a deficit-based discourse. This research note uses reflexivity to propose a set of guidelines for how to implement a strengths-based approach when co-designing with customers experiencing vulnerability, specifically from a social marketing perspective. A real-world program in the context of empowering mature women to maintain secure housing is used to illustrate the guidelines.

Methodologies for researching marginalised and/or potentially vulnerable groups

“…It is essential to be reflexive to identify one’s own biases and capabilities concerning the research topic and the target sample (Carlini & Robertson, 2023). Being reflexive enables a critical inspection of the frameworks, methods and practices adopted in the research process, helping to “rewire the brain” against stereotypical assumptions as Russell-Bennett et al (2023) suggest. Such stereotypical assumptions, unchecked, can limit the agency participants have in participating, in expressing themselves, and in defining themselves.…”

“…Such collaboration can guide all aspects of the research process and can take many forms, from advisory committees with lived experience to engaging and partnering with relevant advocacy and support organisations as stakeholders. Russell-Bennett et al (2023) advocate for using a co-design approach when working with vulnerable customers arguing that such an approach helps reframe the problem and avoid deficit perspectives and language which can serve to disadvantage and disenfranchise participants. They, however, caution that such collaboration should be dependent on what is ethical and possible within the scope of individual projects.…”

A dignity-vulnerability approach framework to maximize well-being outcomes by transformative service initiatives (TSIs)

“…Following Alkire et al (2020) and Blocker et al (2022) calls for multidisciplinary research to address the complexity inherent in TSI design for well-being outcomes, we weave together insights from social marketing and humanistic management (HM) as generative theoretical lenses that have focused on critical dimensions contributing to well-being creation. First, we turn to transformative service research (TSR) research and emerging insights from social marketing (Raciti et al , 2022; Russell-Bennett et al , 2023) to illuminate vulnerability as a critical organizational dimension that can enhance TSI effectiveness. While prior TSR research has highlighted the importance of consumer vulnerability and link to well-being creation efforts (Basu et al , 2023; Khare and Jain, 2022), TSR tends to treat vulnerability as a unified concept and fails to illuminate the variance in how vulnerability is viewed and conceptualized.…”

“…While prior TSR research has highlighted the importance of consumer vulnerability and link to well-being creation efforts (Basu et al , 2023; Khare and Jain, 2022), TSR tends to treat vulnerability as a unified concept and fails to illuminate the variance in how vulnerability is viewed and conceptualized. This distinction is essential as a new stream of research has recently emphasized that how vulnerabilities are viewed (deficit-based vs. strength-based) is an important factor that contributes to the creation of well-being outcomes (Russell-Bennett et al , 2023; Fisk et al , 2023). A deficit-based approach to vulnerability focuses on the powerlessness of the targeted TSI population, ignoring contextual factors causing the vulnerability and failing to acknowledge or aim to leverage targets' inherent strengths and capabilities (Raciti et al , 2022).…”

“…In many definitions and studies of vulnerability, lack of access to resources, control over one's life and lack of ability to function are usually considered reasons for individuals' lack of power, dependence on others and subsequent vulnerability (Hill and Sharma, 2020). This focus on the powerlessness of individuals and their lack of resources and control is a deficit-based approach to studying vulnerabilities (Fogarty et al , 2018; Russell-Bennett et al , 2023). An alternative view is a strength-based approach that highlights resilience and agency (Maton et al , 2004; Mollard et al , 2020).…”