Vulnerability is a topic of interest for marketers, especially social marketers whose primary goal is to improve the quality of life for people experiencing vulnerability. When working with these customers, co-design plays an important role in helping marketers develop social marketing interventions as it focuses on the value customers can bring to the design process.
However, much of the previous research on co-design in social marketing implicitly adopted a deficit-based approach. This was suggested by terms used such as ‘lacking’, ‘less’, or ‘unable’ when describing customers, or negative terms such as ‘homelessness’, ‘domestic violence’, or ‘obesity’ to describe the social problem. The issue with a deficit lens is that it implies that customers do not have sufficient agency, capabilities, or resources to address social problems, and therefore, co-design will less likely result in a solution that can drive change but instead further disempower vulnerable customers.
The alternative to this is a strengths-based approach, underpinned by the idea that all people possess different talents, abilities, capacities, skills, and resources that drive human growth. Although several studies have used a strengths-based approach implicitly, this leaves room for social marketers to continue using the deficit approach while still unconscious of an alternative.
To address the research problem, in particular a lack of explicit guidance on how to implement a strengths-based approach, this research note proposes five guidelines for doing so when co-designing social marketing interventions. These guidelines were developed from reflection on the research processes in a two-year research project, which has a goal of improving the wellbeing of mature women in the context of housing.
Method and context
The Women’s Butterfly Project focuses on the social issue of maintaining secure housing, which can also be alternatively termed ‘homelessness’ if a deficit lens was adopted. The cohort of interest was mature women (aged over 55) experiencing a change of circumstance, such as loss of a partner or income. These women are considered vulnerable as they are often marginalised and underrepresented within society.
This research project was particularly driven by how changing circumstances for mature women can increase their vulnerability to homelessness, to the point that they have become the fastest growing group of homeless people in Australia – 31% increase in just five years,
according to the ABS census in 2018. Women often experience ‘invisible homelessness’ when they move in with children or friends, sleep in their car, or ‘couch surf’. Women also tend to avoid acknowledging their vulnerability to homelessness and avoid seeking support until at crisis point, which is partly influenced by historic marginalisation (e.g., unpaid work, lost superannuation, structural sexism) that they have internalised and normalised.
This research note uses reflexivity as the methodology, which is the reflection on how meaning is created throughout the research process and how this can influence outcomes. From this, five introspection guidelines were developed for a strengths-based approach to co-designing with the research subjects, which are outlined in the following section.
Proposing guidelines for a strengths-based approach
1. Reframe the issue
Reframing the issue ensures that participants in the research do not have a ‘problem to be solved’, but rather resources/capabilities that help improve society. It should be noted that this does not mean ignoring the problem or difficulties. Instead, a strengths-based approach focuses on how a person’s strengths can be leveraged for future solutions. For instance, the starting point of this project was the issue of ‘homelessness’ (at-risk), which was later reframed to maintaining secure housing (at-potential).
2. Relate to the customer
The second guideline, relating to the customer, means to empathise with their experience and to understand their view of the problem. Empathy can be naturally achieved by reframing the issue from identity-based (e.g., at-risk/homeless person) to situation-based (e.g., experiencing housing stress), because if vulnerability is experienced rather than determined by who we are, then any of us could one day have the same experience.
3. Revise the language
This third guideline is only possible once the issue and the customer are viewed from a strengths-based approach that focus on positive qualities and opportunities instead of negative terms (e.g., resilience, potential, and opportunity vs. at-risk, lacking, crisis). Language is a strong driver in shaping markets and concepts. Revising the language emphasises language that labels conditions rather than individuals. For instance, ‘loss of income’ or ‘loss of relationship’ could be replaced by ‘experiencing a change of circumstance’ to offer hope and prospects. Also, terms like ‘struggling’ could be transformed into descriptive terms that highlight capabilities such as ‘help-seeking’ or ‘resourceful’.
4. Rewire the brain through reflection
The fourth guideline is to utilise reflective practice to ensure a strengths-based approach is maintained throughout the research because biases can happen during the process. We should be open-minded enough on an ongoing basis to question one’s own assumptions and slow down the decision-making process to counter several biases. This can be achieved by fostering team accountability, creating reflective moments in meetings, creating a psychologically safe culture for error admission, and embracing quick failures to learn from doing.
5. Redesign the method
The final guideline is about method redesign driven by the deep understanding of customer strengths from earlier steps. Method design should be adaptive and sequential to respond to emerging insights because this is crucial for the implementation of a strength-based approach. For instance, the project’s workshops were redesigned to draw on strengths and positive qualities brought about by the experts. While a design mindset emphasises learning and adjustments, co-design engages stakeholders across the social marketing process from concept creation to outcome design, Hence, balancing stakeholder involvement with ethics and practicality is also essential.
Recommendations (contributions for social marketing)
1. The 5R guidelines can assist social marketers and researchers in codesigning research with customers experiencing vulnerabilities. This ensures empowering and systematic social marketing methods that are likely to be used by marketers or researchers who are new to the social marketing field and are not familiar with strengths-based approaches.
2. Another contribution is the identification of the importance of language in defining the social issue and designing the solution. Language is key in shaping markets over time – also one of the aims of social marketing and policy – thus emphasising the importance of shifting from the use of negative terms (deficit language) to more positive ones (strengths-based). Such use should be consistent among all relevant individuals in the system to support customers experiencing vulnerabilities.
3. Another implication for social marketing research/process is the need for continuous refinement and reflective practices. The use of researchers’ lived experience and ongoing adjustments contributes to the creation of the 5R guidelines for a strengths-based approach in co-designing social marketing research and interventions.
Researcher
More information
The research article is also available on eprints.