Research co-design: What it is, why it’s important and how to do it better

Authored by Peter Slattery and Breanna Wright (one of our health portfolio leads)

Throughout 2021 BehaviourWorks Australia (BWA) is publishing a book to help policymakers and program managers use tools within our ‘Method’ to design and deliver more effective behaviour change programs. We are releasing one free chapter each month.

In Chapter 4 (published 1 April 2021), we discussed the importance of talking with stakeholders. In this post we are going to explore an important use of stakeholder engagement: the process of research co-design. 

What is research co-design?

Research co-design is the process of involving consumers, citizens and other research end users during the research process, ideally during the design, planning and implementation stages. 

Research co-design can also involve collaboration on participant recruitment and disseminating research findings, but engagement which only occurs at these stages of research is arguably not ‘true’ research co-design.

From our perspective, true research co-design starts before the researchers develop a solution. It involves ‘meaningful involvement’: engaging the end users in collaborative processes that will help the research achieve its aims by meeting their needs, such as stakeholder consultation (see Chapter 4).  

What might this look like? For an example see BWA’s work with the Victorian Managed Insurance Authority (VMIA), let by Breanna and Peter Bragge.

Why is research co-design important?

There are many reasons to value research co-design, including caring about representation, equity, and doing things ‘with’ rather than ‘for’ people. However, perhaps the best reason to value it is quite simple: because co-designed research often produces better outcomes and greater positive impact.

Simply put; consumers are usually (though not always!) more expert at understanding their needs and experience than those who design for them. This is why processes such as the ‘lean startup’ and ‘iterative design’ are almost universally adopted in competitive commercial environments. 

Getting good ‘product/market fit’ is one the most important factors for any startups success. and startups, or researchers, who try to design something for others without consulting them will usually fall short of what was possible or fail completely.

Indeed, in The Lean Startup, one of the canonical books on startups, Eric Ries discusses how his team built a product that no-one wanted because they assumed that using many chat apps was a problem for teens when most actually had no issue with it. 

How can we do better research co-design?

As discussed, it’s usually a good idea to engage with your target audience before you try to design for them. It is therefore unfortunately that it is still relatively common that social science research happens without the researchers engaging those that are likely to consume it. 

The lack of research co-design has big consequences: Billions of dollars are wasted annually in health research, in part due to the fact that research outcomes often fail to meet patient and healthcare worker needs.  

We therefore encourage all researchers, particularly academics and the wider academic community, to explore ways to transition towards research processes and publication norms that reward co-design, as this will likely produce better research products and social outcomes. 

For those who do engage in co-design, several organisations have provided a wide range of very useful recommendations for how to do it from (see 1, 2, 3, 4).

Researchers have also reviewed and synthesised evidence on which approaches are common or effective, including the following two reviews:

In health research, Slattery, Saeri, and Bragge (2020) outline eight categories of recommendations for research co-design in health (INVVOLVE): i) invest in co-design, ii) (conduct) needs assessment, iii) vision roles, responsibilities and rewards, vi) validate participants, v) organise interaction carefully, vi) lead the engagement, vii) value patient time and input; and viii) evaluate and report (outcomes). 

Garousi et al. (2016) outline over 100 recommendations for collaboration with industry , across 16 categories which include; knowledge management (communication, terminology, training and skills), ensuring engagement, managing commitments, and understanding the industry’s needs.

Conclusion

In this post we have introduced the concept of research co-design, explained why it is so important and discussed some ways to do it better. 

As a part of stakeholder engagement, research co-design complements systems thinking, evidence reviews and data analysis, as discussed in our earlier chapters. Together these approaches help us identify and understand key behavioural problems during the Exploration and later phases of The BWA Method.

In Chapter 4 of The Method Book, we discuss many types of stakeholder engagement that can be useful within research co-design so please check it out if you would like to learn more.

Give feedback

Read my previous articles and posts