Abstract
Although co-design is widely promoted in healthcare, it is seldom true co-design. In practice, power imbalances persist, and (former) service-users’ voices rarely shape design decisions. This study examines how design processes can nevertheless surface these much-needed perspectives. Using a multiple-case study design, nine peer-reviewed healthcare design projects were selected and reformulated into analytical scenarios, enabling systematic comparison of methodological strategies. Thematic cross-case analysis explored how user perspectives were elicited, how insights informed design decisions, and where representation broke down. A key finding is that lower levels of direct involvement require more methodological steps to capture and translate users' needs adequately. The results offer a modest compass for designers designing within healthcare contexts. They might prevent situations in which co-design or participatory approaches are merely performative because they align with current trends, while the service users’ perspective is not genuinely embraced in the process.
Keywords
co-design, perspective-making, design methodology, health
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1235
Citation
Terlouw, G., and Veldmeijer, L. (2026) Co-what? A new perspective on participation and collaboration with vulnerable populations in design studies: Methodological inquiry, in Simeone, L., Gray, C. M., Verhoeven, A., de Götzen, A., Bakırlıoğlu, Y., Zohar, H., Stead, M., and Buwert, P. (eds.), DRS2026: Edinburgh, 8–12 June, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2026.1235
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Co-what? A new perspective on participation and collaboration with vulnerable populations in design studies: Methodological inquiry
Although co-design is widely promoted in healthcare, it is seldom true co-design. In practice, power imbalances persist, and (former) service-users’ voices rarely shape design decisions. This study examines how design processes can nevertheless surface these much-needed perspectives. Using a multiple-case study design, nine peer-reviewed healthcare design projects were selected and reformulated into analytical scenarios, enabling systematic comparison of methodological strategies. Thematic cross-case analysis explored how user perspectives were elicited, how insights informed design decisions, and where representation broke down. A key finding is that lower levels of direct involvement require more methodological steps to capture and translate users' needs adequately. The results offer a modest compass for designers designing within healthcare contexts. They might prevent situations in which co-design or participatory approaches are merely performative because they align with current trends, while the service users’ perspective is not genuinely embraced in the process.