Co-Designing Compassionate Templates at the University of Glasgow
Author
JADE ALEXANDER
User Researcher
University of Glasgow
Summary
The University of Glasgow wanted to make the language in its outcome letters more compassionate without losing clarity. It ran a four-stage co-design process bringing students and staff together to review, draft, and refine the templates, resulting in a base letter and supporting staff guidance.
The challenge
The University of Glasgow relies on template letters for difficult communications with students, particularly outcome letters that deliver sensitive or unwelcome news. The University recognised that the language used in these templates needed to become more compassionate, without losing necessary clarity.
The approach
Rather than redesigning the letters internally, the University ran a series of co-design sessions bringing together both students and staff, structured across three stages:
Workshop 1: The process began by reviewing examples of existing letters from across the university and gathering initial feedback on their tone, language and content. Participants first reviewed the letters individually before coming together in groups to discuss their opinions and experiences. This activity highlighted key themes relating to structure, formatting, the sequencing of information and the importance of clear, compassionate language.
The second part of the workshop involved a ‘build your own’ activity, where students and staff co-designed communication templates for selected scenarios. Each group prepared a communication template by selecting the information that should be included and the order in which it should appear. They then drafted an opening paragraph to demonstrate the tone and language they felt should be used.
The outputs from workshop 1 were used by the project team to develop a series of more detailed letter templates for a number of identified outcomes.
Workshop 2: The second workshop involved the same participants from Workshop 1 and began by presenting the developed templates. At this stage, two different template versions had been created based on the insights gathered in Workshop 1 and adapted for various scenarios. The participants were asked to feedback on the templates, including what they liked, disliked, found helpful or confusing. This allowed the project team to test whether the templates reflected the principles and preferences identified during the first workshop.
The second activity focussed on co-designing some of the supporting elements of the communications. This included identifying the most useful support services and resources to signpost students to, exploring preferences for subject line and sender details, and determining what additional information or FAQs should be added to each communication.
Workshop 3: The final workshop followed the same format as Workshop 2 but involved a new group of students who hadn’t participated in the original co-design sessions. This allowed the project team to test the templates with fresh participants and gather independent feedback on the content, tone and overall approach.
The additional perspective helped validate the findings from the earlier workshops and identify any remaining areas for refinement before finalising the templates.
This process produced a base template for difficult communications, along with guidance to help staff adapt it appropriately. The guidance covered several practical points, such as including the student’s name and ID at the top of the letter so they could ensure it was meant for them, using clear headings to increase readability, and making sure the key message and next steps were highlighted at the beginning. Additionally, every letter should include clear support options, with both a mix of online resources and the option to speak with a person directly.
The impact
The project team noted a shift in feedback between the first and final sessions, demonstrating tangible improvements in the letters. Moreover, the co-design process, particularly students’ involvement, proved to be a significant source of credibility, obtaining buy-in from both students and staff.
Staff have responded with real enthusiasm, with many reaching out wanting access to the guidance or asking for similar work to be shared with their own teams. The fact that students were involved in shaping the templates has given the work a credibility that a purely top-down approach would have struggled to achieve. For their part, students have expressed how much they valued being included as genuine partners in the process, rather than simply being consulted after the fact.