SOCIAL IDENTITY MODEL OF CO-DESIGN | THE AC-DC* PROJECT
AC-DC* Project · University of Queensland · Sophie Griffiths
How facilitation structures the social and creative conditions that make co-design generative — and what happens when those conditions are removed.
Social Identity Model of Co-Design (SIMCO)
How the model was tested — five experimental conditions
| Condition | Score | Identity-Enabling | Identity-Enacting | Structured Creative | Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| α Alpha | 6.81 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Generative Integration |
| Creative Off | 5.81 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | Normative Convergence |
| Enactment Off | 4.75 | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | Tokenistic Inclusion |
| Identity Off | 4.50 | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | Independent Co-working |
| γ Gamma | 3.13 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | Nominal Collaboration |
Score = mean overall collaborative outcome rating (1–7)
Each condition systematically varies which SIMCO processes are present. Select a condition to explore its findings.
High Identity Support · High Participation Structure · High Creative Challenge
Generative and legitimately integrated. All three process clusters produced their expected effects in combination. A genuine "we" orientation emerged. The group generated 14 ideas, sustained exploration through four stages, and produced five integrated recommendations — including two novel configurations not in existing literature.
"I feel like we actually built something today."
— Margaret (Patient)The structured voice round in Stage 2 was the single most consequential facilitation move — producing the perspective shift in clinical participants that enabled all subsequent reframing and integration.
High Identity Support · High Participation Structure · Low Creative Challenge
The most relationally successful session after Alpha — and the one most likely to be mistaken for excellent co-design in practice. High satisfaction, genuine inclusion, strong implementation intent. But without divergence prompts or reframing challenge, the group converged early on nine ideas — all present in existing literature.
"These are things we can actually do. That matters." — Dr. Chen. True. And insufficient.
— The consensus ceiling in actionRemoving creative challenge did not reduce safety — identity formation and enactment remained identical to Alpha (both 6.75). But it eliminated the generativity that safety enables. Safety and challenge operate as independent dimensions.
High Identity Support · Low Participation Structure · High Creative Challenge
Genuinely warm, engaged, and creatively generative — but influence consolidated around the clinical coalition. Two reframing events occurred, but both within the clinical frame. Patient and carer contributions were welcomed warmly but did not materially shape final outputs.
"I feel like people really listened today. I'm just not sure how much of what I said made it into the actual recommendations."
— Margaret (Patient)The largest within-condition discrepancy: Shared Social Identity Formation (6.00) vs Shared Social Identity Enactment (2.50). Relational warmth and structural power are independent. This is co-design's most dangerous failure mode — it feels like success.
Low Identity Support · High Participation Structure · High Creative Challenge
Structurally fair but relationally thin. All voices were heard in structured rounds. But without shared framing or a "we" orientation, contributions sat in parallel rather than building generatively. The most novel idea — pharmacist continuity as a relational mechanism — surfaced but did not propagate.
Procedural fairness is necessary but not sufficient for genuine collaborative integration. Being heard is not the same as shaping outcomes. The identity gap — the absence of shared "we" — was the mechanism through which the most novel experiential insight was lost.
Low Identity Support · Low Participation Structure · Low Creative Challenge
Clinically sound, experientially hollow. Clinical and system voices set the agenda from the first exchange. No reframing. Convergence by Stage 3. Outputs reflect professional consensus indistinguishable from what a working group without patient/carer involvement might produce.
"I suppose so. I still think the plain language thing is important but I understand it's more complicated."
— Margaret (Patient), on the final recommendationsFull cross-condition data across all SIMCO domains and output metrics.
| Domain / Metric | Alpha | Creative Off | Enactment Off | Identity Off | Gamma |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIMCO EVALUATION RATINGS (1–7) | |||||
| Shared Social Identity Formation | 6.75 | 6.75 | 6.00 | 4.00 | 3.75 |
| Shared Social Identity Enactment | 6.75 | 6.75 | 2.50 | 5.00 | 2.75 |
| Structured Creative Processes | 7.00 | 3.00 | 5.75 | 4.50 | 2.50 |
| Collaborative Outcomes | 6.75 | 6.75 | 4.75 | 4.50 | 3.50 |
| Overall Mean | 6.81 | 5.81 | 4.75 | 4.50 | 3.13 |
| OUTPUT METRICS | |||||
| Ideas Generated | 14 | 9 | 12 | 11 | 7 |
| Novel Ideas | 2 | 0 | 1 (not pursued) | 0 | 0 |
| Reframing Events | 2 | 0 | 2 (clinical only) | 1 (partial) | 0 |
| Cross-stakeholder Integrations | 3 | 3 (reorg.) | 1 (dyadic) | 1 (within clinical) | 0 |
| Patient/Carer Influence | Direct | Direct | Peripheral | Minimal | Negligible |
| Convergence Stage | 4 (late) | 2 (early) | 3–4 | 3–4 | 2–3 |
| COLLABORATIVE PATTERN | |||||
| Pattern | Generative Integration | Normative Convergence | Tokenistic Inclusion | Independent Co-working | Nominal Collaboration |
| Defining Characteristic | High 'groupiness'; shared identity enables generative, novel collective outputs and interdependence | High 'groupiness'; agreement without creative challenge; interdependence without generativity | Felt ingroup membership; belonging without structural power; relational not structural interdependence | Low 'groupiness'; individual participation without shared social identity; interaction, not interdependence | Minimal 'groupiness'; individual identities dominate; no psychological group or interdependence |
Creative Off shows safety and challenge operate as independent dimensions. Removing challenge did not reduce safety — but eliminated the generativity that safety enables. The two axes cannot substitute for each other.
Novel ideas emerged only in Alpha. Their emergence required all three SIMCO elements simultaneously — structural amplification, relational identity, and creative challenge. No single element alone was sufficient.
The fate of patient and carer contributions provides the clearest indicator of genuine collaborative quality — from direct influence (Alpha) through resigned acceptance (Gamma).
Select a condition and watch an abbreviated SIMCO simulation unfold. See how different interactional architectures shape collaborative dynamics in real time.
Where did each condition land? All four hypotheses were supported.
Supported
Conditions with stronger identity-enabling processes produced higher formation ratings (Alpha & Creative Off M=6.75; Gamma M=3.75). Trust, engagement, and shared purpose varied systematically with identity support.
Supported
Conditions with stronger participation structures showed higher enactment ratings. Critically, the Enactment Off condition demonstrated that formation and enactment are separable: formation remained high (M=6.00) while enactment fell sharply (M=2.50).
Supported
Conditions supporting divergence, reframing, and delayed convergence produced stronger creative process ratings. Reframing occurred only when all three SIMCO process clusters were jointly present or substantially retained.
Supported
Alpha produced the strongest outcomes (M=6.75, 14 ideas, 2 reframing events). Creative Off matched Alpha on perceived legitimacy despite lower novelty — participation alone was insufficient to sustain generativity without creative challenge.
Central Finding
Identity formation and enactment are separable.
Groups can develop a strong sense of shared identity without that identity shaping how participation unfolds. The Enactment Off condition showed that felt belonging without structural power produces inclusion in name only — participation without distributed influence. Both formation and enactment must be explicitly supported.
| Condition | Pattern | Defining Characteristic |
|---|---|---|
| Alpha | Generative Integration | High shared identity enables generative, novel collective outputs and genuine interdependence |
| Creative Off | Normative Convergence | High shared identity; agreement without creative challenge; interdependence without generativity |
| Enactment Off | Tokenistic Inclusion | Felt ingroup membership; belonging without structural power; relational not structural interdependence |
| Identity Off | Independent Co-working | Individual participation without shared social identity; interaction, not interdependence |
| Gamma | Nominal Collaboration | Minimal shared identity; individual identities dominate; no psychological group or interdependence |
Facilitation is not neutral coordination. SIMCO conceptualises it as identity leadership — the active structuring of collaborative conditions through deliberate method selection and sequencing. What the facilitator chooses to do, and when, shapes whether groups form shared identity, enact it structurally, and sustain productive challenge.
Presence and participation are necessary but not sufficient for generative collaboration. The findings support moving beyond broad descriptions of workshops toward more explicit reporting of the discrete methods structuring collaborative interaction — making co-design practice more transparent, comparable, and experimentally testable.