Co-selecting students for more democratic co-creation: A case study from the Create a Subject Challenge
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v7i2.5236Keywords:
co-creation, deliberative democracy, co-selection, students as partners, create a subject challengeAbstract
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.
Downloads
References
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. https://melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1513123/FYE-2014-FULL-report-FINAL-web.pdf
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. https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2013.020
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4
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. https://iutconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Bryson_Paper_IUT2015.pdf
de Greef, L., Post, G., Vink, C., & Wenting, L. (2017). Designing interdisciplinary education: A practical handbook for university teachers. Amsterdam University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1sq5t4k
Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(IV), 1993–204. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/esj/about
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. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3503
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. https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.2.63
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. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v5i1.4455
Knappe, H. (2017). Participatory and deliberative democracy In Doing democracy differently: Political practices and transnational civil society (pp. 45–76). Budrich UniPress. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbkk41f
Kuh, G., O’Donnell, K., & Schneider, C. G. (2017). HIPs at ten. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(5), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1366805
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. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3300
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1655396
Mercier, H. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.001
Mercier, H., & Claidière, N. (2022). Does discussion make crowds any wiser? Cognition, 222(104912). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104912
Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press.
Moshman, D. (2020). Reasoning, argumentation, and deliberative democracy (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429316029
Nguyen, L., & Barrese, M. (2022). Student view. HERDSA Connect, 44(1), 10. https://www.herdsa.org.au/sites/default/files/HERDSA%20CONNECT%20-%20autumn%202022%20-%20updated%2026may.pdf
Post, G. (2020, July 14). Create a Subject Challenge. School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Melbourne. https://biomedicalsciences.unimelb.edu.au/study/create-a-subject-challenge
The University of Melbourne. (2019). Student life at the university of Melbourne: A strategy for undergraduate student life [White paper]. https://staff.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3151274/Student-Life-White-Paper.pdf
The University Of Melbourne. (2023). Annual report 2020. (n.d.). https://annualreport.about.unimelb.edu.au/
Wenstone, R. (2012). A manifesto for partnership. https://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resources/a-manifesto-for-partnership-2013/download_attachment
Wijaya Mulya, T. (2019). Contesting the neoliberalisation of higher education through student–faculty partnership. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(1), 86–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1520110
Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 420–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415599543
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ger Post, Lily Nguyen, Jiang Li Tan, Saw Hoon Lim, Sophie Paquet-Fifield, Michael Barrese, Charlotte Clark
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process - this applies to the submitted, accepted, and published versions of the manuscript. This can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
