Scientific Articles

Crespo-López, A., Ramis-Salas, M., Ruiz-Eugenio, L., De Botton, L., Elboj, C., Valls-Carol, R., & Soler-Gallart, M. (2025). Co-Creating Social Impact: Dialogues Between Policymakers, Practitioners, and the “Other Women” for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 17(19), 8947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198947

Jacobi, J., Llanque, A., Mukhovi, S. M., Birachi, E. A., von Groote, P. M., Eschen, R., Hilber-Schöb, I., Kiba, D. I., Frossard, E., & Robledo-Abad, C. (2022). Transdisciplinary co-creation increases the utilization of knowledge from sustainable development research. Environmental Science and Policy, 129, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.12.017

Puigvert, L. (2014). Preventive Socialization of Gender Violence Moving Forward Using the Communicative Methodology of Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(7), 839–843. doi: 10.1177/1077800414537221

Explanation of the Post

Scientific evidence helps improve people’s lives. When citizens are actively involved in the research process and in applying scientific evidence through open and equal dialogue, this is called co-creation.

Some researchers, like Jacobi and colleagues (2022), have shown how important it is to include people outside of academia—such as community members and professionals—in joint efforts between scientists and decision-makers, especially when working on sustainability. They found that co-creation helps generate knowledge that leads to real changes. However, much of the research done so far hasn’t led to changes in policies or everyday practices. To make a real difference, it’s important to bring together people from different backgrounds in spaces where everyone’s voice is heard and respected. In this line, Crespo and colleagues (2025) studied how co-creation between policymakers, professionals, and women without academic backgrounds can lead to positive social change. Their findings show that involving women in vulnerable situations in these processes can help promote sustainable development.

It’s worth noting that co-creation and social impact are related, but they’re not the same thing. One doesn’t depend on the other. For example, some scientific evidence has improved people’s lives without involving co-creation. Still, using co-creation to develop strategies—like those aimed at preventing gender-based violence—can help increase the impact of those efforts. What matters most is that the dialogue in co-creation is based on scientific evidence. For example, co-creation helped teachers in primary and secondary schools understand the importance of using scientific evidence when creating educational materials to prevent gender-based violence (Puigvert et al., 2024). Similarly, in universities, giving students and staff access to scientific evidence—and involving them in its application—can help create real change. In the UK, universities have recently taken steps to address harassment and sexual misconduct. They are now required to train staff and students on what these behaviours are, publish clear policies, and prevent conflicts of interest in relationships between staff and students (Clarke & Doughty, 2024).

The idea of co-creation comes from a research approach called communicative methodology. Puigvert (2014) highlighted how this methodology has helped tackle violence against women by creating theories that better reflect real-life experiences and by using scientific evidence to work toward ending this violence. Communicative methodology is based on equal dialogue between researchers and participants, where everyone contributes valuable knowledge. According to philosopher Jürgen Habermas, there shouldn’t be a hierarchy between them in terms of how knowledge is created. Researchers bring scientific evidence, and together with participants, they build new knowledge through dialogue. This methodology has even transformed the European Commission’s research programme (European Commission, 2010; Flecha et al., 2018). Today, co-creation is considered a key requirement for funded research projects.

Other sources

Clarke, H., & Doughty, E. (2024, September 25). Thousands of students report sexual violence at university. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq65z20pde2o

European Commission. (2010). Conclusions: ‘science against poverty’. Paper presented at the Segovia Conference, La Granja. Retrieved April 8–9, from, https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/268/268168/activity-report-110208.pdf

Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2014). Communicative Methodology: Successful actions and dialogic democracy. Current Sociology, 62(2), 232–242. doi: 10.1177/0011392113515141

Flecha, R., Radauer, A., & van den Besselaar, P. (2018). Monitoring the impact of EU framework programmes. European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ cbb7ce39-d66d-11e8-9424-01aa75ed71a1

Gómez, J., Latorre, A., Sánchez, M., & Flecha, R. (2006). Metodología comunicativa crítica [Critical Communicative Methodology]. Barcelona: Hipatia.

Habermas, J. (1981). Teoría de la acción comunicativa (Vols. 1–2). Madrid: Taurus.

Puigvert, L., Alzaga, A., Duque, E., Ferreira, D., Canal, J. M., Bellavista, J., Carbonell, S., Miralles, L., & Coronado Albalete, P. J. (2024). “I’ve never thought about it this way”: the process and positive implications of co-creation on teacher education about prevention of gender-based violence. Education Inquiry, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2024.2431367