Beyond a buzzword: The need for shared language, education, and enhanced reporting of disability inclusive co-design research

Share Beyond a buzzword: The need for shared language, education, and enhanced reporting of disability inclusive co-design research on Facebook Share Beyond a buzzword: The need for shared language, education, and enhanced reporting of disability inclusive co-design research on Twitter Share Beyond a buzzword: The need for shared language, education, and enhanced reporting of disability inclusive co-design research on Linkedin Email Beyond a buzzword: The need for shared language, education, and enhanced reporting of disability inclusive co-design research link

First published online 26 January 2026.

Why this study was done

In recent years, the word “co-design” has become a popular term in disability research. Co-design means involving people with lived experience of disability as active partners in designing research, services, or programs not just as participants. However, the authors recognised several problems including that there is no clear description of what disability-inclusive co-design actually involves, different researchers use the word co-design in different ways, many studies do not clearly explain how people with disabilities were included or what role they played and there is limited guidance or education available to help researchers and community members do this work well.

This study was done to highlight these gaps and to argue for clearer language, better education, and better standards so that disability-inclusive co-design becomes more clear, consistent, and openly collaborative.

What the study did

This article looked at how disability-inclusive co-design research is being done and reported. The authors studied current practices in research where people with disabilities are partners in the design process, to understand:

  • How well this type of co-design is explained using clear shared language
  • Whether education or guidance exists to support good practice
  • How regularly studies report their co-design methods

What the study found

The authors found that while “disability-inclusive co-design” doesn’t have a clear standard for describing the ways it is used and how researchers describe similar processes in different ways. They also found that there is limited education and guidance on how to do co-design well, especially involving people with disabilities as equal partners. At the moment reporting of co-design methods in research articles is inconsistent and incomplete, making it hard for others to learn from or build on previous work.

What this means

Disability-inclusive co-design is more than a popular label. The research design has real value, but only if researchers are clear and consistent in how it’s practised and shared. Researchers need shared definitions and standards for inclusive co-design, so everyone means the same thing. Training or educational resources should be created to help researchers and disability partners work together successfully. Better reporting standards are needed so research articles clearly show how people with disabilities were involved throughout the research process. Improving language, education, and reporting could help make co-design more effective and meaningful for both researchers and disability communities.

This study was conducted by:

Dr Kelsey Chapman, Ms. Joyce Yi, Dr. Michael Norwood, Dr. Kelly Clanchy, Dr. Joan Carlini, Dr. Camila Shirota, Dr. Maretta Mann, Dr. Jessie Mitchell, and Professor Elizabeth Kendall.

To read the full article, visit the journal.

For other accessible formats, please see the column to the right.

Disclaimer: The QDRN has utilised generative AI to refine the wording of this plain language summary. All content has been checked for accuracy, appropriate tone, and clarity and approved by the author.

First published online 26 January 2026.

Why this study was done

In recent years, the word “co-design” has become a popular term in disability research. Co-design means involving people with lived experience of disability as active partners in designing research, services, or programs not just as participants. However, the authors recognised several problems including that there is no clear description of what disability-inclusive co-design actually involves, different researchers use the word co-design in different ways, many studies do not clearly explain how people with disabilities were included or what role they played and there is limited guidance or education available to help researchers and community members do this work well.

This study was done to highlight these gaps and to argue for clearer language, better education, and better standards so that disability-inclusive co-design becomes more clear, consistent, and openly collaborative.

What the study did

This article looked at how disability-inclusive co-design research is being done and reported. The authors studied current practices in research where people with disabilities are partners in the design process, to understand:

  • How well this type of co-design is explained using clear shared language
  • Whether education or guidance exists to support good practice
  • How regularly studies report their co-design methods

What the study found

The authors found that while “disability-inclusive co-design” doesn’t have a clear standard for describing the ways it is used and how researchers describe similar processes in different ways. They also found that there is limited education and guidance on how to do co-design well, especially involving people with disabilities as equal partners. At the moment reporting of co-design methods in research articles is inconsistent and incomplete, making it hard for others to learn from or build on previous work.

What this means

Disability-inclusive co-design is more than a popular label. The research design has real value, but only if researchers are clear and consistent in how it’s practised and shared. Researchers need shared definitions and standards for inclusive co-design, so everyone means the same thing. Training or educational resources should be created to help researchers and disability partners work together successfully. Better reporting standards are needed so research articles clearly show how people with disabilities were involved throughout the research process. Improving language, education, and reporting could help make co-design more effective and meaningful for both researchers and disability communities.

This study was conducted by:

Dr Kelsey Chapman, Ms. Joyce Yi, Dr. Michael Norwood, Dr. Kelly Clanchy, Dr. Joan Carlini, Dr. Camila Shirota, Dr. Maretta Mann, Dr. Jessie Mitchell, and Professor Elizabeth Kendall.

To read the full article, visit the journal.

For other accessible formats, please see the column to the right.

Disclaimer: The QDRN has utilised generative AI to refine the wording of this plain language summary. All content has been checked for accuracy, appropriate tone, and clarity and approved by the author.