Employing a co-creational design in projects such as creative practices has been found to have a range of benefits for the potential for transformative change (Heras et al., 2021; Moser, 2016). Moser (2016) who synthesises 16 co-design experiences, finds that “Co-design serves as an instrument of transformation“ (p.112). Similarly, Galafassi et al. (2018) who use art-based approaches for envisioning climate transformations, use co-creation as a central tool to enable creativity and inspiration in their approach. They find that “Visioning is commonly thought of as a process of co-creating an image of a desired world in which a group of people would engage and work towards” (Galafassi et al., 2018, p.8). Hence, the process of co-creation can be seen to enable participants in transforming themselves (Galafassi et al., 2018; Moser, 2016). Hence, the process often stimulates creativity and open-mindedness (Galafassi et al., 2018).
Further, co-creational approaches have not only been used successfully in the creation of a creative product (such as exhibitions) but also as part of the creative product aiming to engage spectators (Antón et al., 2018; Holdgaard & Klastrup, 2014). It has been found that using co-creation in exhibitions results in more earnest experiences and incentivises further engagement (Antón et al., 2018). However, a successful application might come with high monetary resource requirements, e.g., when digital means are used (Holdgaard & Klastrup, 2014).
A host of research supports the general positive effect of co-creational designs in various contexts. It involves the cooperation of people from diverse backgrounds, some of which may have been underrepresented otherwise. By providing a shared platform, critical explorations and evaluations can be made, which is crucial to evidence-based change. Co-creation thereby enriches perspectives and sensitises participants to the implications of these differences while it can foster emancipation. This can result in the participants not only reflecting on the role of others but also on themselves. Thus, the process of co-creation enables participants to connect on a deeper emotional level than it likely happened otherwise and inter alia, produces a diversity of imaginable possibilities for transformation. Co-creation can hence be seen as a valuable tool for knowledge creation (Galafassi et al., 2018; Heras et al., 2021; Moser, 2016; Nicholas et al., 2019; Vines et al., 2013).
Communication is fundamental to any kind of collaboration or established connection between participating actors. Hence it has been brought forward that it is critical that there is room to establish a shared language. Since participants optimally come from diverse backgrounds and/or hold differences in power, interests and knowledge, a shared language and visions bridge these differences, opening room for collaboration (Lee et al., 2018; Thomas & McDonagh, 2013).
Further, the strengthened interconnectedness of the participants combined with empathy towards one another can give rise to the sense of the collective in the co-creation process (Galafassi et al., 2018). Vines et al. (2013) argue that when entering a co-creational process individuals automatically receive certain power and agency. This can translate in further ambition to work in a collective in other contexts and can create the perception of collective agency.
Overall, we conclude, co-creation has been found to be a valuable tool to enhance the transformative potential of creative practices inter alia as means of transformative knowledge creation, inner transformation process for participants and creating collective agency. Further, research by Heras et al. (2021) suggests that there are plenty more undiscovered gains in co-creational approaches between creative practitioners and sustainability studies.