Can co-design deal with policy disputes?

This article explores how co-design practices engage with disputes in participatory policy making, drawing on a UK local authority housing case study. Public participation is widely regarded as enhancing legitimacy and effectiveness, yet conflicting perspectives between citizens and officials can generate persistent tensions. Using frame reflection theory, this study examines how participants collaboratively navigate competing policy logics while revising a council’s Lettable Standard. A qualitative single-case study methodology was employed, centered around 4 day-long co-design workshops and post-workshop negotiations. Analysis via a frame critical approach produced maps revealing tenant concerns, local authority priorities, and points of conflict. A key finding is the development of a “Healthy Home Promise,” a provisional or “clumsy frame” that accommodates multiple perspectives without privileging one logic over another. This demonstrates how co-design can surface disputes, foster collaborative negotiation, and produce implementable policy proposals. The study extends frame reflection theory by emphasizing the emergent, politically and emotionally complex nature of reframing in practice. It contributes to understanding co-design as a deliberative tool that legitimizes citizen participation while managing disputes, suggesting that clumsy frames are a practical approach for addressing policy controversies in participatory settings.