Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Co-creation

Co-creation’s Origins in Marketing

The importance of customer participation in value creation has been recognized in marketing since the late 1970s, with an initial focus on gains for the company in having customers participate in production (Bendapudi & Leone, 2003). Successful participation was measured by a company’s increase in productivity through customer labor (Lovelock & Young, 1979). The model of customer participation to minimize labor costs shifted in the early 1990s, with recognition that participation elicited an emotional response in the consumer toward products they had input into. By the late 1990s, marketing no longer regarded the customer as a passive receiver but as an “active and knowledgeable participant in a common process” (Wikström, 1996, p. 360), articulating the structuring of customer and supplier relations as the co-creation of value (Zwass, 2010).

By the end of the 20th century, co-creation increasingly referenced the idea of consumers as “partners in mutually beneficial innovation and production processes” (Cova, Dalli, & Zwick, 2011, p. 232). Popularization of the term is often credited to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) who defined the modern customer that is no longer satisfied with passively receiving products and services but desires a “personalized consumer experience” involving dialogue and transparency (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004, p. 5). The Web and e-commerce continues to propel the trend, enabling both individuals and communities as a significant and growing productive force; “this is ‘the wiki way’ - consumption and production can be intertwined” (Zwass, 2010, p. 15). Indeed, where previously economists rarely distinguished between experiences and services (assuming they had no novel individual value) they now recognize a “progression of economic value” (Pine & Gilmore, 1998, p. 97) in which consumers are less engaged by commoditized services but value participatory experiences.

Co-creation in Social and Product Design

Although the term co-creation became popular in product design in only the past decade (Sanders & Stappers, 2008), the term participatory design has referenced the incorporation of users into the design process since the 1970s (Cross, 1972). Although originating in social design processes around collective decision making in community planning and system development (Ruhl et al., 2014), participatory design developed in part because of efficiencies observed in methods that overtly incorporated the needs and expertise of end users (Bødker, 1994). Soon designers were “no longer simply designing products for users, [but] designing for the future experiences of people, communities and cultures” (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p. 6).

However, typical stakeholder consultation workshop approaches used in “participatory design” fail to achieve the loftier aspirations of participation not just “at the moment of decision [but] at the moment of idea generation” (Cross, 1972, p. 121). One challenge has been that such co-creation requires a shift in the traditional role of the design researcher, from a translator between users and designers to a facilitator of users’ creativity. Such facilitation requires assessing capability in terms of creativity and contribution potentials that each user holds and then negotiating their input accordingly. This means providing leadership for those who are there to simply get something done, guidance for those who are not ready to create from scratch, and a clean slate for those who are inspired to create something entirely their own (Sanders & Stappers, 2008).

Co-creation and Participatory Pedagogy in Education

In education, the cognitive and social effects of cooperative group work have been understood since at least the late 1960s (Bruffee, 1999). Different forms are recognized, including cooperative and collaborative learning. Where cooperative learning involves noncompetitive interaction, with reward structures encouraging group work to accomplish a common goal, collaborative learning goes a critical step further in aiming to equalize power within the group by avoiding hierarchy (Gamson, 1994). Its benefits include innovative idea generation and critical thinking (Sung & Hwang, 2013). Although sometimes termed “knowledge co-creation” (e.g., Bossu & Fountain, 2015), a better defined and synonymous term is “participatory pedagogy,” a student-centered learning approach that enables learners to mold their learning outcomes by creating content and structure (Andersen & Ponti, 2014) for a curriculum that is not fully predefined. This approach has been shown to increase student investment in learning and reduce their alienation from formal education through more mutual relationships between teachers and pupils (Bovill, 2013).

Although gaining popularity, participatory pedagogy still appears to be a fairly new term (a Google Scholar search returned 1,610 hits, compared with 92,100 when searching “co-creation”; search date March 29, 2018). One explanation for its slow acceptance is that it disrupts well-honed hierarchical structures, transforming teachers into facilitator/mentors “providing guidance on demand” (Rambe & Bere, 2013, p. 78). The upset of established process can be risky practice for teachers responsible for producing quality content and learning environments, delivered on time and to budget (Bovill, 2013). Here the effect of the “digital age” is again an influential, if unintentional, accelerant of at least small-scale inroads. The user-generated content of Web 2.0 has been recognized for its potential to build collaboration skills and enable students to actively shape their learning process (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010), with co-created information sources such as Wikis (designed, written, edited, and published cooperatively by a network of users) generating creative thinking and constructivist learning (Parker & Chao, 2007).

Co-creation in Museology

Although repositioning museums from being “open to the public” to becoming public oriented and co-produced has been long suggested, its enactment has been slow (Anderson, 2012). Gradually, however, museums are welcoming substantive collective input as participatory institutions, transforming from “being about something to being for someone” (Weil, 2002, p. 229). Simon’s (2010) influential definition of co-creation in museology suggests that it be understood as a partnership between the public and the museum in which both parties define their needs and goals at a project’s inception and work toward them. In this concept of co-creation, the public has significant control and both groups own the ensuing project and co-own the final work. The benefits of this power sharing and reciprocity include reciprocal knowledge gain and long-term public engagement (Smith & Iversen, 2014) as well as critical thinking and democratized involvement (Rogers & Rock, 2016). Indeed, co-creation can provide opportunities to reciprocally enrich a community and institution with skills and experiences, while facilitating the preservation of traditional culture. Through co-creation of themes and content, and collaborative shaping of its interpretations from conception to execution, it is possible for museums to more effectively communicate and help preserve the living culture surrounding its collections, as well as build cultural agency and strength within both the community and museum (Somerville & EchoHawk, 2011).

Although Simon (2010) clearly defined co-creation, delineating it from, for example, collaborative participation, there remains a wide and sliding scale of what is considered co-creation in a museum setting. Often it is considered to entail visitors being invited to publicly share (e.g., “Tweet”) their responses to certain content on display or encouraged to “post a note” about a completed exhibition (Holdgaard & Klastrup, 2014). Sometimes it involves communities lending objects, or occasionally, contributing ideas or artistic expression. More rarely it includes consulting the public for guidance at the early stages of exhibition development and working together during the entire creative process. Although examples of co-creation according to Simon’s definition exist (e.g., Bryant, 2011; Gibson & Kindon, 2013; Rogers & Rock, 2017), in practice, it appears to be far more common to find the term co-creation used interchangeably with “user-generated content” enabled by social media engaging with the museum’s online presence (Grabill, Pigg, & Wittenauer, 2009), and involving little two-way interaction.

Arnstein’s Ladder and Bakhtin’s Carnival

The importance of differentiating scales of interaction and rearranging power relations for a participatory museum, as well as other forms of co-created science communication, can be usefully explored through Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation and Bakhtin’s carnival theory.

The difference between participation versus co-creation (or cooperative vs. collaborative learning) can be likened to that between consultation vs. partnership according to Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation (Figure 1). Sherry Arnstein developed the model in the 1960s, when she served as a community and health policy specialist at the U.S. Department of Housing, Education, and Welfare in the Kennedy administration and as chief adviser on citizen participation at the U.S. Department of Housing, Education, and Welfare under the Johnson Administration. Where lower rungs of her ladder include “degrees of tokenism” (associated with “informing” or “consultation”), higher rungs (associated with “partnership” or “delegated power”) generate the most authentic participation through citizen empowerment. These higher rungs align with Simon’s (2010) definition of co-creation (with co-determined aims, process, and outcomes) and with collaborative learning, where a real degree of authority and power is handed over and “takes both the student and the professor ‘into enemy territory’” (Gamson, 1994, p. 46).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Ladder of citizen participation from Arnstein (1969).

Places where social boundaries are broken down to enable roles less acceptable under normal social constraints may not always be “enemy territory.” Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian linguist and literary critic, recognized the carnival as a space without differentiation between performers and audience, where everyday rules, regulations, and inhibitions are temporarily suspended, the social and political world is turned upside down and everyone is able to speak and act freely. This fosters a universal spirit and creates possibilities for renewal and innovation such that carnivals could be “the second life of the people, who for a time entered the utopian realm of community, freedom, equality, and abundance” (Bakhtin, 1965/1984, p. 9). A participatory museum finds parallels with a carnival when barriers break down and visitors and curators co-own the show through co-creative dialogue of different forms: dialogue with self (creative expression), with people (free and familiar interaction), with principle (critical reflection), and with context (exploring interrelationship) (Jun & Lee, 2014; Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The four types of dialogue from Bakhtin’s carnival theory from Jun and Lee (2014).

A significant hurdle for the carnival of co-creation remains within institutional resistance to disrupting accepted processes. Driven by budgetary and time constraints, many leaders are unwilling to risk relinquishing control of efficient processes, such that Govier (2010) posits there is a chronic lack of appropriate leadership for effective co-creation in museums. Indeed, top-down hierarchical systems of working remain traditional in many fields, stymying shifts toward work more focused on facilitation and coordination (Kittur & Kraut, 2008). Our new age of collaboration and community input requires leadership distinct from traditional concepts of directorship, instead assisting a “community of talent” to find their own directions most effective for them (Gobillot, 2010).

Conclusion

If challenging hierarchical norms is difficult and often requires substantial time and effort to enact, is co-creation really worth it? A global survey by Bradwell and Marr (2008) found highly positive perceptions of co-design among public service practitioners in diverse fields (health, transport, social welfare, and education) and roles (managers, directors, administrators, and technicians). Their respondents (across the Americas, Europe, and Asia-Pacific regions) noted multiple benefits of co-creation, from energizing a product and creating end products better for the customer, to generating useful information, creating a feeling of co-ownership, and building healthy relationships. Its benefits are increasingly apparent in many disciplines. Education has shown the importance of mutual relationships and empowerment in enabling innovative thinking and reducing alienation with “the establishment.” Marketing and design understand that customers and end users can also be valuable participants in the creative process and that they will be more invested in solutions that they have helped realize. The sciences have recognized the value of co-creation for co-ownership of information and social capital, particularly for locally contextualized work. Because the challenges and risks are also well identified, work-arounds will be evolving simultaneously. Where co-creative processes have been challenged by field experts’ distrust of the quality of public contributions, lessens can be learned from instances where participatory research methods are effectively transitioning researchers into enabling roles. Design is already wrestling with best practice for facilitating different degrees of creative ability and the sciences with how to plan projects from inception to hold public motivation across multiple phases of interaction.

In science communication it remains important to clarify a definition of co-creation, where a lack of coherence is a potential stumbling block to its fuller enactment and conceptual evolution. In establishing a working definition, it will be useful to consult the evolving taxonomies within Web-based marketing (e.g., autonomous vs. sponsored co-creation and involving skilled contributors vs. prequalified individuals vs. community members; Zwass, 2010) as well as within citizen science (e.g., contributory vs. participatory projects; Roy et al., 2012). Requiring a shift from traditional hierarchies, co-creation demands a surrendering of substantial power to a public/community in time-consuming and uncertain activities toward potentially risky or undefined ends. While undoubtedly challenging, its shift away from consultative “tokenism” takes us closer to the aspirational higher rungs of partnership on Arnstein’s ladder (1969), where more egalitarian empowered interactions can move us toward deeper and more mutually rewarding relationships.