Kirsty Reed, Research Officer at RNID, reflects on her opportunity to join a co-design sprint with Meta and shares why lived experience is essential to creating technology for everyone.
In August, I had the opportunity to take part in a three-day co-design sprint with Meta in the USA.
A co‑design engagement is an intensive, hands‑on workshop where people with different abilities collaborate directly with designers and researchers to explore challenges, share insight and influence the direction of new products or services.
The event brought together co-designers with lived experience of deafness and hearing loss, external collaborators, developers, and researchers to focus on accessible technology.
Why co-design matters
Co-design is a great way to influence the creation of products and services to ensure they meet people’s diverse needs. As someone who straddles both the research and deaf communities, it was a powerful moment in which the two worlds collided.
Co-design is often described as a collaborative process, but this sprint went further. It used a liberatory design approach that makes a deliberate effort to bring communities that have historically been underserved in certain spaces into the decision-making process. It actively includes lived experience alongside various forms of expertise − for example, subject matter and technical knowledge − at an early stage in the design process.
It’s like holding a mirror up to the systems we work within. It helps us to think about who gets to design, whose voices are heard and who might be unintentionally missing.
Wearing two hats
As a researcher, I look for patterns in data, ask questions, and seek evidence. But as someone with lived experience of deafness, I bring another kind of knowledge: one that is embodied, emotional, and sometimes overlooked in traditional research frameworks.
This sprint challenged me to combine both perspectives, not just intellectually but emotionally. Co-design isn’t about balancing expertise and experience, it’s about dissolving the hierarchy that exists between them. It values all knowledge and experience, whether that experience is lived or learned.
Together with co-designers from across the USA and Europe, we spent time learning about each other’s daily lives and how we use technology. As the sprint progressed, understanding each other’s daily lives and priorities helped shape the conversations, decisions, and prototypes.
Having difficult conversations
In co-design, it’s vital to create space for difficult conversations. Trust in this co-design didn’t mean avoiding conflict but being able to navigate it together. We built this trust by committing to listen, reflect and stay in the room when things got hard.
I was asked what I thought of a product. The room was full of developers and engineers − people clearly committed to inclusive technology − but I didn’t feel the product worked well. I couldn’t see myself using it in its current form and saying it out loud was nerve-wracking. I was worried I might come across as negative or ungrateful, but I said it anyway.
To my surprise, the response was open and positive. People listened, they asked questions and no one got defensive. That moment reminded me that honest feedback, even when it’s uncomfortable, is essential to responsibly designing technology that serves everyone.
Discomfort isn’t a sign that something’s gone wrong, it’s often a sign that something meaningful is happening. This creates space to revisit the idea or even reimagine the product entirely.
Takeaways
Whilst three days might seem short, I learned many lessons. First, that co-design can be complex and can involve difficult conversations. It’s vulnerable but it’s also deeply human. Successful co-design is built on trust, humility, and a willingness to change.
Second, this experience also reshaped how I think about research. Sometimes, research risks being extractive. Data is gathered, analysed, and the findings are published. Research must always remain accountable to the communities it works with. Co-design encourages this flexible and collaborative approach.
For me, as a researcher with lived experience, wearing both of these hats is a privilege and a responsibility. I will continue to advocate for bridges between them at all stages of the research process.
