Co-Creation

Co-creation as an option for an intervention at a development symposium

Co-creation is regarded as a process Michalik (2023) and therefore is at least semi-structured.  Michalik also states that the participants need to understand the process implying there are multiple stages to the process – including participant recruitment, process explanation, topic explanation, and co-creation task explanation, task limitations. Mbah and Ezegwu (2025) note broad variance in the understanding of what co-creation is which reinforces the need to brief and train participants on what to expect and indeed what to exclude from a particular co-creation process.

Coggan, et al. (2021) suggest that good knowledge co-creation includes a diverse stakeholder group, a shared goal, but an appreciation for diverse views leading to discourse. In addition, they suggest co-creation should happen in a well-resourced manner meaning environment, time, and materials. Aligned with Michalik, Coggan, et al. (2021) also state the importance of explicit rules and with a stage of participant reflection and critique.

Coggan, et al. (2021) note that the view that co-creation is a positive and applicable model in development environments, there is limited literature to support this, particularly in environmental policy design and review.  This may indicate the risk of well-intentioned stakeholders focusing on process and not practical output or being too similar given their recruitment to a co-creation event.  

Liu, et al. (2022) noted that in policy development, the presence of moderator,  such as food safety in their research, rooted the co-creation process and led to practical outputs.

Mgoduka, et al, (2025) noted that co-creation as a development model is aided by third-party inputs which act as a moderator and anchor to practicality.

In conclusion, whilst co-creation is well supported as a model in general, it seems too risky for a symposium where there may be completing things for potential participants to do. In addition, there may be a limited diversity of opinions and therefore restricted discourse.     

References

Coggan, A. et al. (2021) “Co-creating knowledge in environmental policy development. An analysis of knowledge co-creation in the review of the significant residual impact guidelines for environmental offsets in Queensland, Australia,” Environmental challenges (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 4. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100138.

Liu, J., Yang, W. and Cong, L. (2022) “The role of value co-creation in linking green purchase behavior and corporate social responsibility – An empirical analysis of the agri-food sector in China,” Journal of cleaner production, 360. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132195.

Mbah, M.F. and Ezegwu, C. (2025) “Impactful Methodological Considerations for Knowledge Co-Creation in Sustainable Development Research,” Sustainability, 17(1), p. 52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010052.

Mgoduka, S., Kaseeram, I. and Heeralal, S. (2025) “Assessing the Extent to which Customer Feedback Contributes to Value Co-Creation: A Focus on the Tourism Industry,” Journal of sustainable development law and policy, 16(1), pp. 187–208. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v16i1.10.

Michalik, G, (2023) “Co-Creation Mindset, Eight Steps towards the Future of Work”, Springer, Switzerlandlklklkjlk