Co-development methods and tools

The co-development team should reflect the diversity of the people that will use the technology including women, young people, old people and representatives from other groups that are often excluded from access to and benefits of technologies.

In addition, stakeholders at different levels (from local to global) have valuable knowledge to contribute to technology development and to influence the outcomes of technologies. Appropriate ways to engage these stakeholders at the right stage of the project can therefore improve the resulting technologies and assist the project to influence policy and practice.

Example: Participatory mapping

Participatory mapping activities, commonly used in international development projects, involve groups of participants drawing maps of the physical locations in which technologies will be used on flipcharts. These maps are a starting point for participants to discuss, for example, perceived challenges the technology is meant to address and potential barriers for technology use. Participatory mapping can also be used to chart the (power) relationships between different stakeholders to discuss how these might influence technology access and distribution of benefits.

Communication is key to technology development, yet it often poses unexpected challenges. If project stakeholders speak different languages, multi-lingual facilitation or translation is essential. However, words and concepts are also frequently assigned different meanings by academics from different academic disciplines and non-academic participants. Developing a common language is a precondition for creating a shared understanding of the challenge to be addressed and possible ways to address them. 

Example: Developing shared language

Words frequently have different meanings to natural scientists, social scientists and technology users (the word "theory", for example, may be interpreted differently by academic and non-academic stakeholders). Terms that are important to your co-development project, therefore, need to be defined using non-technical vocabulary to ensure shared understanding and create the foundation for a shared narrative. If stakeholders speak different languages, translations also need to capture these shared meanings. Shared definitions are captured in a project dictionary, which can be referred to and added to over the project's duration.

To create trusting relationships, technology development projects need to communicate openly, accountably and transparently. This includes discussing and agreeing on expectations for your project and investing time and resources to ensure participants’ informed engagement in this process. It also includes identifying different views, resolving conflicts and addressing cognitive biases. 

Example: Shared expectation tools

Different stakeholders may approach a project with different expectations of the research process. Some may focus on advancing scientific knowledge, while others are more interested in achieving societal benefits or solving a specific local problem. Discussing these expectations helps to understand, negotiate and agree on shared processes and desired outcomes of the co-development project. This includes collectively agreeing on what outcomes the project is likely to deliver, which outcomes cannot be guaranteed and which outcomes are beyond the scope of the project. This process allows participants to make an informed decision on whether they want to be involved in the project. The outcome of these discussions can be captured in a shared expectations document at the outset of the project, which is revisited periodically to remind participants of the initial expectations and check whether they have changed and need to be adapted.

Technologies that were designed for one context may be inappropriate for another. Conversely, technologies embedded in and responsive to the local context are more likely to be adopted and operated sustainably. It is important to understand the local context, including power relationships and histories of technology innovation and how users engage with science and technology.

Example: Photo elicitation

Photo elicitation is a qualitative research tool that augments discussions by introducing visual elements. For example, technology users and scientists take photos based on a theme related to the technology being co-developed. These photos are subsequently used as a starting point for discussing the technology or the context in which it will be used. Photos can trigger rich conversations between scientists and technology users and promote understanding of how each group perceive the issues to be addressed. Including scientists and technology users in the photo-elicitation also changes the traditional roles of scientists doing research and technology users being the subjects of research. Here scientists and technology users are simultaneously researchers and research subjects.

Example: Walking discussions

Walking discussions involve scientists and technology users sharing context-specific knowledge in the place where technologies will be used. This may be a household, a hospital, a workplace, a farm or a rural village. Linking information sharing with physical spaces in this way can produce richer data and a better understanding of the context.

Scientists' research goals are frequently different from those of technology users. It is therefore important to start by identifying and defining a shared problem to be addressed by the research. This may involve collectively finding answers to the questions such as: Are we solving the right problem? Is the research user-directed or scientist-driven? What innovations already exist to address this problem? What technological objects or social arrangements need to be designed or adapted to address the problem? How can we address the problem in a way that is appropriate to the local context and leads to equitable outcomes? 

Example: Shared problem definition tool

Who gets to define the problem to be addressed by technology is important since scientists and engineers are often removed from the context in which technologies are used. It is therefore important to move to a technology development model in which users are involved in defining the problem. Facilitated discussion allows scientists and technology users to articulate their respective problem definitions and agree on a shared, more complete definition of the problem to be addressed. This process helps to provide local ownership and control over the co-development process and may reveal social and institutional aspects of a problem context that would otherwise remain hidden from scientists.

Example: Multi-stakeholder workshop

Multi-stakeholder workshops bring together a range of stakeholders from different levels (international or national to local) and a range of sectors (which may include policymakers, researchers, representatives from the private sector and non-government organisations, donors and technology users). While these workshops can serve a range of purposes, the focus is on sharing knowledge and learning from each other. Note that technology users may require particular support to present their challenges, needs and wants to stakeholders that are more comfortable and confident in workshop settings. Workshop outcomes may include developing shared understanding and building networks with possible future allies.

Power relationships may stand in the way of achieving equitable outcomes. Bridging power imbalances and ensuring different types of knowledge and skills are valued by all participants is essential to co-development. Special consideration needs to be given to groups or individuals who are 'technologically marginalised' and normally excluded from technology development, access to and benefits of technologies. Capacity-building activities may be necessary to allow all participants to fully engage in the technology co-development process. 

Example: Discussion in disaggregated groups

Small, disaggregated groups (for example, by gender, age, or special needs) can create an environment for everyone’s contributions to be heard and reflected in the outcomes of the project. Each group provides feedback to the larger group. This encourages facilitated discussion on why different groups may have identified different benefits and challenges and how benefits can be shared more equitably.

Example: Capacity building

Scientists and technology users that have not previously been involved in technology co-design may need support to understand the process of co-designing technologies. Capacity-building exercises can provide clarity about different stakeholders' roles in the co-development process and improve their understanding of participatory processes and how outcomes emerge from the interaction between society and technological objects. Technology users may also need to acquire basic concepts of technology development while scientists may need to learn about the local context.

Co-design processes can radically change the technical specifications of a technology in ways that promote its local fit and provide benefits to technology users who would otherwise be excluded. The outcomes of technologies also depend on how they are used in context. It is therefore equally important to co-develop shared rules that determine how a technological device is used.

Example: Determining socio-technical specifications (SHTEPS tool)

The SHTEPS tool helps to determine socio-technical specifications that work in the local context. Participants are encouraged to consider the advantages or disadvantages of potential versions of a technology in relation to Social, Health, Technical/Financial, Environmental, Political/Institutional and Sustainability (or SHTEPS) domains.

Facilitators ask guiding questions to stimulate discussion on the potential benefits and disadvantages of the technology in each domain. Answers are noted in a table, which is used as a starting point to discuss technical and institutional technology specifications with the aim to maximise the identified potential benefits and minimise any potential negative impacts of the technology. The table also highlights the need for possible trade-offs based on what is technically possible (e.g. is speed or accuracy more important).

Technologies need to be tested and iteratively improved by scientists in the lab as well as by users in the context in which they will be used. 

Example: Techno-social trials

Techno-social trials provide an opportunity to trial the interplay between technology prototypes and the way they are used in a specific context. Participants are assigned roles of different stakeholders, including technology users with diverse histories of access to and benefits from technologies. They use role play to examine how technical specifications and rules on how the technology is used interact in a range of scenarios. This creates a starting point for a facilitated discussion of what worked well and what could be improved with the aim of refining technology specifications. This tool also allows participants to gain insights into the challenges of stakeholders that may be excluded from the benefits of technology.