Just had reviews back on #codesign work with @RebeccaJaneLaw2. Neither reviewer is designer or expert in codesign. Have been challenged on whether the work is actually codesign & referred to look at the work of @gbrgsy to inform this - which made me wince. Thread /1 of 16

Not that I haven't learnt from work of @gbrgsy nor that EBCD work isn't valuable. EBCD is a great problem solving process for some (small) challenges, but could crudely be described as 'design for novices' /2

It was developed as a simplified & standardised codesign process for a complex, highly skilled practice, to enable non-design experts (healthcare professionals) to tackle small changes with patients - service improvement /3

Now in Health Services Research land, it is being held up as a 'CoDesign Gold Standard' for everything, applied to research as well as service improvement /4

Forgetting the origins & original scope/purpose of EBCD could be dangerous. Recognising that subsequent development & wider application of EBCD beyond its original scope has not involved design or codesign experts from the discipline of Design, should also be remembered /5

I understand why EBCD was developed as a standardised methods that striped out elements of design judgement & skill that couldn't be reproduced. This kind of methodological development may be fine for methods within a given domain of expertise /6

However, it is a highly risky strategy when borrowing methods from other domains of knowledge, skill & practice. You don't know what you are loosing & practitioners within this new domain do not have the inherent training & skill base /7

I've not seen EBCD presented with "this is what we didn't carry over from the discipline of Design & the skilled practice of CoDesign by Designers". Never framed in relation to skills & competencies gap. Training in doing EBCD ≠ training in Design or CoDesign practice /8

In the end, I ask again, why not just collaborate with designers rather than try to replicate their practices? But back to our specific case... /9

A specific challenge from reviewer: "is this CoDesign?" It was interpreted as though we ( @Lab4Living) designed the first draft & sought feedback. So a valid question. Now I don't think we explained it like this but will check semantics, discipline specific language or jargon /10

We ran a codesign workshop (ws). We used design prompts & provocations to enable partners to define needs, constraints, ideas & visual prototypes. This is all DESIGN. Our codesign partners & us were CoDesigning with each other in 1st ws /11

Before 2nd ws, we (Lab4Living design team) used our design skills & competencies to make models representing & challenging these needs, constraints & ideas, developing visual prototypes & provocations in addition to those our codesign partners had developed in 1st ws /12

This is not us 'doing' the design. This is us combining design input from non-designers with our design skills, competencies & experiences. This is designers making things to enable greater engagement with the design process for non-designers /13

Neither Health care researchers nor Healthcare professionals bring these skills or competencies to codesign processes. They are not described in EBCD. So they are mistakenly interpreted as designers making the solution - doing the design for people, not with people /14

As I say above, need to look closely at how I described our process to navigate description of what we did, whilst conforming to the journal/audience need for a standardised method, knowing HSRs's wont be able to repeat my method because they are not designers /15

Reviewers in healthcare, need to be aware of Design as an entire discipline & body of knowledge outside Health Services Research. Not everything of value from Design for HSR can be condensed into EBCD. Be honest about origins & (skill) limitations of borrowed methods /end