Low-Contact Co-Design: Considering more flexible spatiotemporal models for the co-design workshop

Abstract

The recent global experience of COVID-19 has problematized the face-to-face co-design process and forced co-design researchers and practitioners to rethink the process of collaboration that typically takes place in a co-design workshop. This paper considers how we might continue to co-design when physical proximity is not possible. Recognising that technology has long played a role in co-design practice, we argue that to date, the technologically mediated experience of co-design has been largely based on the assumption of replicating the physical and embodied experience of the co-design workshop. Rather than accepting the deficit culture implied through the curtailing of much of the conventional face-to-face activities we associate with co-design, this paper reports on proactive research into novel possibilities for continuing collaborative research work through the concept of ‘low-contact co-design’. A series of proprietary visual models that explore a range of spatiotemporal conditions within which co-design practices can occur are presented. Opportunities for engaging with new communities, and in new processes are highlighted and a spatiotemporal framework for planning co-design processes is presented.

Empowering patients to co‐design Covid‐19 responses: the role of online health communities

“…Due to Covid‐19, social distancing and lockdown, researchers have come up with innovative ways to adapt face‐to‐face co‐design methodology to an online environment (Beresford et al, 2021b; Kennedy et al, 2021). Digital platforms, such as WhatsApp and Facebook, have been successfully used for co‐design (Brown et al, 2020) and more flexible processes of collaboration have been proposed that respond to the need for low‐contact and social distancing as a result of Covid‐19 (Davis et al, 2021; Langley et al, 2021). Digital co‐design methods can help overcome power imbalances and inequalities (Kennedy et al, 2021), although the type of technology and accessibility are key considerations in digital co‐design methods (Hall and Gaved, 2021).…”

Rapid development of a COVID‐19 care planning decision‐aid for family carers of people living with dementia

“…Due to restrictions imposed by the UK lockdown and social restrictions at this point, coproduction was performed digitally via videoconferencing software as well as using a combination of synchronous and asynchronous methods. 15 This proved a feasible and beneficial method for reaching diverse groups of collaborators but its limitations are acknowledged.…”

“…Coproduction is recommended as an approach for the development of decision‐aids 14 . We used a variety of asynchronous and synchronous methods, including workshops, individual meetings and written feedback to coproduce our decision aid 15 . This ensured that the voices of all end users were heard.…”

“… 14 We used a variety of asynchronous and synchronous methods, including workshops, individual meetings and written feedback to coproduce our decision aid. 15 This ensured that the voices of all end users were heard. This information was combined with data from a literature review and individual semi‐structured interviews with people living with dementia, family carers and professionals to produce our decision aid.…”

“…We embraced the flexibility of the coproduction methods and approaches, which allowed us to complete this study during a global pandemic, using what has been termed low contact approaches in coproduction. 15 We used a combination of synchronous and asynchronous approaches, including one‐to‐one meetings and written feedback. This was due to necessity—the need to develop the decision‐aid to meet the rapidly developing COVID‐19 situation, and physical restrictions imposed by the government.…”