Co-selecting students for more democratic co-creation: A case study from the Create a Subject Challenge




co-creation, deliberative democracy, co-selection, students as partners, create a subject challenge


Democratic processes are at the foundation of the students-as-partners (SaP) framework. Student selection for SaP projects however, is typically in the hands of staff, which is undemocratic and faculty assumptions and practice exclude particular students from co-creation projects. We describe a case study in which students and staff jointly select students for a co-creation project in the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Our reflections suggest that co-selection, compared to selection of students by staff alone, further realizes the democratic ideal of SaP by integrating the student perspective early in the co-creation process. We reflect on the democratic processes in our case study through the lens of deliberative democracy and share prospects and perils of voting and deliberation to embed the student voice in student selection for co-creation.


Download data is not yet available.


Baik, C., Naylor, R., & Arkoudis, S. (2015). The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from two decades, 1994-2014. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.

Besedeš, T., Deck, C., Quintanar, S., Sarangi, S., & Shor, M. (2014). Effort and performance: What distinguishes interacting and noninteracting groups from individuals? Southern Economic Journal, 81(2), 294–322.

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195–208.

Bryson, C., Furlonger, R., & Rinaldo-Langridge, F. (2015, July). A critical consideration of, and research agenda for, the approach of ‘students as partners.’ International Conference on Improving University Teaching, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

de Greef, L., Post, G., Vink, C., & Wenting, L. (2017). Designing interdisciplinary education: A practical handbook for university teachers. Amsterdam University Press.

Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(IV), 1993–204. Retrieved from

Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Free Press.

Dwyer, A. (2018). Toward the formation of genuine partnership spaces. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 11–15.

Felten, P., Bagg, J., Bumbry, M., Hill, J., Hornsby, K., Pratt, M., & Weller, S. (2013). A call for expanding inclusive student engagement in SoTL. Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 13.

Felten, P., Cook-Sather, A., & Bovill, C. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Gutman, E., Sergison, E., Martin, C., & Bernstein, J. (2010). ‪Engaging students as scholars of teaching and learning‬. In C. Werder & M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 130–145). Stylus Publishing. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Islam, M., Burnett, T.-L., & Collins, S.-L. (2021). Trilateral partnership: An institution and students’ union collaborative partnership project to support underrepresented student groups. International Journal for Students as Partners, 5(1), 76–85.

Knappe, H. (2017). Participatory and deliberative democracy In Doing democracy differently: Political practices and transnational civil society (pp. 45–76). Budrich UniPress.

Kuh, G., O’Donnell, K., & Schneider, C. G. (2017). HIPs at ten. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(5), 8–16.

Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton University Press.

Marquis, E., Jayaratnam, A., Mishra, A., & Rybkina, K. (2018). “I feel like some students are better connected”: Students’ perspectives on applying for extracurricular partnership opportunities. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 64–81.

Mercer-Mapstone, L., Islam, M., & Reid, T. (2021). Are we just engaging ‘the usual suspects’? Challenges in and practical strategies for supporting equity and diversity in student–staff partnership initiatives. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 227–245.

Mercier, H. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 689–700.

Mercier, H., & Claidière, N. (2022). Does discussion make crowds any wiser? Cognition, 222(104912).

Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33(2), 243–258.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press.

Moshman, D. (2020). Reasoning, argumentation, and deliberative democracy (1st ed.). Routledge.

Nguyen, L., & Barrese, M. (2022). Student view. HERDSA Connect, 44(1), 10.

Post, G. (2020, July 14). Create a Subject Challenge. School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Melbourne.

The University of Melbourne. (2019). Student life at the university of Melbourne: A strategy for undergraduate student life [White paper].

The University Of Melbourne. (2023). Annual report 2020. (n.d.).

Wenstone, R. (2012). A manifesto for partnership.

Wijaya Mulya, T. (2019). Contesting the neoliberalisation of higher education through student–faculty partnership. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(1), 86–90.

Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 420–424.




How to Cite

Post, G., Nguyen, L., Tan, J. L., Lim, S. H., Paquet-Fifield, S., Barrese, M., & Clark, C. . (2023). Co-selecting students for more democratic co-creation: A case study from the Create a Subject Challenge. International Journal for Students As Partners, 7(2), 151–164.



Case Studies