News
Co-creation in research drives organisational development
For research findings to be used and make a difference, researchers and societal stakeholders can co-create the study together. But how does this work in practice? A three-year learning process on co-creation in research is now coming to an end.
At the final learning workshop in May 2026, results from a three-year learning process on co-creation were presented, coordinated by Mötesplats Social Innovation and Forte.
Often, researchers are responsible for formulating the research questions and carrying out the research projects. However, in co-creative research, relevant organisations or target groups are also involved early in the study – ideally already when the research questions are formulated and the intended outcomes are defined. Forte sometimes requires co-creation in certain calls, particularly when it comes to client- and practice-oriented research.
When Forte made co-creation a requirement in three calls in 2022–2023, the researchers who were awarded funding were given the opportunity to meet as part of a three-year learning process, coordinated by Mötesplats Social Innovation (MSI) at Malmö University and Forte. During the third and final learning workshop, participants focused on the results of the learning process and the projects, as well as on the benefits of co-creation.
Co-creation helps ensure that research is put to use and becomes useful, which can also support the development of organisations.
Anna Tengqvist
Project Manager at Mötesplats Social Innovation, Malmö University
Time and flexibility lead to positive outcomes
The results show that co-creation can lead to both positive and negative outcomes.
– The outcome of co-creation depends, for example, on why and how it is carried out and in what context, says Malin Lindberg, visiting professor at Malmö University and a member of the MSI team.
– What contributes to positive outcomes in co-creation are favourable conditions, such as having time to get to know each other’s organisations and flexibility in how the work is carried out, says Anna Tengqvist, who led the MSI team.
Negative outcomes may occur when societal stakeholders are invited to have a say but are ultimately not given any real influence. This can result in a form of pseudo co-creation, so-called tokenism. It may also be due to a lack of expertise in the area being studied among participants, or insufficient knowledge of co-creative methods among researchers.
One aspect that can be both positive and negative is that researchers and participating societal stakeholders interpret the results differently. These differing perspectives can, in fact, be one of the intended benefits of co-creative research.
Relevant research supports organisational development
Anna Tengqvist views co-creation as evidence-based organisational development.
– Co-creation helps ensure that research is put to use and becomes useful, which can also support the development of organisations, she says.
The results of the survey of researchers who led projects in the three calls show, among other things, that 94 per cent of researchers believe that co-creation has contributed to societal benefit. Eighty-eight per cent consider that co-creation has been relevant to society.
In clinical practice, I can pick up important questions that can and should be answered scientifically, thereby acting as a bridge between science and practice.
Philip Lindner
Psychologist and associate professor in clinical psychology, Karolinska Institutet
Co-creative researcher
Another way of understanding co-creation is when the researcher has one foot in academia and one in clinical practice. Philip Lindner is both a practising clinical psychologist at Maria Ungdom in Stockholm and a docent and research group leader at Karolinska Institutet.
– The advantage is that, in my clinical work, I can identify important questions that can and should be answered scientifically, and thereby act as a bridge between science and practice, Philip said during the learning workshop.
His research group is running one of the 42 projects included in the learning process. Much of their research focuses on digitising addiction care. In a Forte-funded project, they are exploring, in co-creation with social services, how gambling addiction can be channelled – from municipalities’ budget and debt counselling services to the comparatively more developed regional addiction care services. The final study in the research project is now about to begin.
– We have worked co-creatively at every stage, both internally within regional addiction care and externally with municipal social services across the country. Together, we have formulated the research question – and even reformulated it. We have also jointly developed the methods, how we analyse the data, and how we will disseminate the results, he says.
Report in the autumn
In autumn 2026, the learning process will conclude with a report presenting the lessons learned.
Difference between collaboration and co‑creation
- Collaboration is when societal stakeholders are involved in the planning and implementation of research.
- Co‑creation is a more in-depth form of collaboration, where societal stakeholders are involved in several parts of the research process, for example in formulating the research question and the method.
About the three-year learning process
- A collaboration between Forte and Mötesplats Social Innovation (MSI) at Malmö University.
- The learning process includes three calls for proposals with 42 funded projects: Applied Welfare Research 2022, Children and Young People’s Mental Health 2022, and Co‑creation for Sustainable Working Life Development 2023.
- In the learning process, the calls and projects have been studied through a document study, survey, interviews, learning workshops, research review, and more.
- Runs from 2023 to 2026.
Read more about co‑creation on Forte’s website: Collaboration between research and society External link.
TEXT: Lena Lindkvist (english translation by Forte)
