How can refugee communities be engaged in the co-design of education opportunities? And why does this matter?

There is a crisis in education provision for refugees. New funding, , advocacy, data and, importantly, new education solutions are required to avoid an entire generation of refugees missing out on primary, secondary and tertiary education. This post argues that key to developing and implementing new solutions is engaging the community — refugees — to co-design and co-create them.

‘Bottom-up’ innovation is, for the most part, underacknowledged by the humanitarian community. Yet, refugees’ knowledge and skills can be crucial in creating or adapting services. In education, co-design and co-creation of curricula has been seen to not only increase course relevance and student engagement , but also improve learning outcomes.

This post presents an initial proposition by the Jamiya Project of how to approach co-design of higher education with refugee communities. First, the broad context of the refugee education crisis is outlined, followed by the theoretical frameworks underpinning bottom-up innovation and co-design in higher education courses. Finally, an initial model of opportunities for co-design is presented. This is not final, nor is it beyond improvement, so all thoughts and comments are warmly welcomed.

1.Refugee education: the challenge

There are currently more people displaced by conflict and crisis than at any time since World War 2: 65.6 million in total, with 11.6 million of these in protracted situations, having been displaced for five years or more. This has had a devastating impact on education opportunities available to these people. Since 2011 the number of school age refugees has increased by an average of 600,000 per year. 61% of these children do not attend school (UNHCR, 2017). Into tertiary or higher education, participation drops even further: only 1% of the global population of young refugees and asylum seekers attend university, compared to a world average enrolment rate of 36% (UNESCO 2015; UNHCR, 2016).

The barriers refugees face are many and complex - and they vary between levels of education and contexts of delivery. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stresses the importance of integrating refugees into national systems, yet these systems are overburdened and require support to receive additional numbers. Moreover, hosting governments have little incentive to include refugee populations in their own education systems only to risk domestic political disquiet (Betts and Collier, 2016). Refugees themselves require livelihood support to make study financially viable, as well remedial and accelerated courses to give them a chance of succeeding (UNHCR, 2017). Structural barriers, including invalid documentation and residency restrictions, create further challenges for refugees seeking to access education, on top of persistent gender, disability and socio-religious factors (Gladwell et al, 2016).

These statistics and barriers illustrate the lack of provision, but also highlight a missed opportunity for both the individuals and the societies that host them. Education can provide significant empowerment for refugees to contribute to local development, become active community leaders, and improve their income and livelihoods, as well as acting as a protection tool, shielding vulnerable populations from exploitative environments (UNHCR, 2016). There has also been increasing recognition of the economic and human capital potential that refugees can contribute to host countries — and the role of higher education and training in this process (Legrain, 2016). Yet a lack of provision has forgone this opportunity to the extent the international community risks missing the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, not only in education but also health, peace, and poverty reduction (UNHCR, 2016).

Solving the education refugee education crisis requires addressing several areas . There is a significant need for investment, particularly to support national systems, which the Education Commission has set out to achieve (Education Commission, 2016). There is also a need to reduce structural barriers to education through advocacy and diplomatic engagement (UNHCR 2017), perhaps most visibly tackled through recent initiatives such as the Support Syria conference held in London during 2016 (Supporting Syria, 2016). New and improved systems to collect data on monitoring, access and enrolment are also required, as migrant and displaced populations tend to be less visible in national education statistics (UNESCO, 2016). Finally — and the focus of this paper — there is a need for new models of education that overcome some of the challenges refugees face in access (UNHCR, 2017; Betts and Collier, 2016). As such, the international community and humanitarian sector needs focus on innovation in models of education in order to overcome the refugee education crisis.

2. How to approach innovation in the humanitarian sector

The obligation on the part of the international community is clear: to promote and find new solutions that support refugees accessing education. Gordon Brown, the Chair of the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity, has recognised that meeting the educational needs of the most marginalised in society, including refugees, will require “a willingness to harness new technology”. Yet, technology is only one aspect of ‘innovation’ that focuses on products and technological advance.

Innovation is a process rather than a single instance or product, and there have been been a wide variety of historical approaches to private sector and social innovation (Bessant, et al 2014). Betts and Bloom (2013) argue that the humanitarian system has historically had ‘two worlds of innovation’: one that focuses on process generating ‘top-down solutions’ to improve organisational responses to challenges; and another, ‘bottom-up’, that focuses on community participation, harnessing the skills and talents of the beneficiaries organisations are working with.

Both worlds are necessary and each are complementary to the other. But bottom up innovation has so far been under-recognised by the international community, despite it being observed that local innovation, capacities and markets key to finding sustainable humanitarian solutions increasing local ownership and is necessary part of the humanitarian mission (Ramalingam, Scriven and Foley, 2009; Nielsen, Sandvik, and Jumbert, 2016; Betts and Bloom, 2013). Specifically in regard to education, there is also clear scope to consider the contribution of the refugee community itself, to overcome the rigid approaches that have come to typify existing models (Betts and Collier, 2016).

3. Pursuing bottom-up innovation in education

Recent research and programming from key actors in the field of education for refugees have identified the central role that communities can play in creating new solutions. Between ‘bottom-up innovation’ models (Betts and Bloom, 2013), innovative education practices in humanitarian settings, and contemporary models of student engagement in higher education, it is possible to identify three areas where pursuing bottom-up approaches to education can lead to innovative solutions:

• establishing vision and aligning with local context;
• in adaptation and creation of curricula and content; and
• in service design and delivery.

Following a review of existing approaches in innovation and co-creation in higher education in the UK and the US, an initial version of a bottom-up approach to education is presented, which identifies opportunities for community participation, co-design and co-creation in higher education for refugees.

Framing bottom-up innovation

In discussing humanitarian innovation, several models are identified by Betts and Bloom (2013) in defining bottom-up innovation. These are: innovation management theory, particularly in social innovation; design methods and human centred design; and participatory methods. All are processes that emphasise the role of end-users in influencing and making decisions on design or business models.

Innovation management theories typically centre on the improvement of large scale business models. However, Betts and Bloom (2013) identify several sub-theories that exhibit ‘bottom-up’ process, with social innovation being one such example where the focus is on maximising social change rather than profit. It places particular emphasis on the individual as innovators, with stakeholders leading new ways to use technology and the consumer moving from passive recipient to ‘active player’ in production of products (Murray et al, 2010). Rather than standardisation and replication from the centre, complexity is distributed to the ‘margins’ (the user or consumer) in order to find cost efficiencies and adaptations. User-led and reverse innovation are also identified as models that reconfigure traditional innovation processes to emphasise the potential of drawing on those at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’.

The second model Betts and Bloom (2013) draw on is ‘design thinking’ from the work of IDEO.org and ‘human centred design’ (HCD) processes (Brown, 2009). These methods see the user as having a crucial role in the process of designing products or services. Gaining a rich understanding of the experience of the user aligns the designer’s perspective as closely as possible to that of the user. The user is also considered a key partner in co-designing at each stage in the process. This approach allows designers explore local knowledge and work arounds to uncover solutions that provide improved and adapted interventions for communities through an experiential methodology (Brown and Wyatt, 2010).

Betts and Bloom (2013) also highlight ‘participatory methods’, which have been present in development and humanitarian work for several decades. This approach aims to empower local communities through decision making and finding locally appropriate solutions. Although similar in ethos to HCD, more recent theorists have focussed on the citizenship nature of participatory methods (Hickey and Mohan, 2004), which suggests an emphasis on democratic inclusion and right to participate, rather than the experiential methodology of HCD. But participatory methods have suffered from several critiques. These including lack of clear definition, extraction of knowledge rather than facilitation, and the complexities of power politics.

Bottom-up innovation in a humanitarian context is defined “as the way in which crisis-affected communities engage in creative problem-solving, adapting products and processes to address challenges and create opportunities” (Betts, Bloom and Weaver, 2015). As such it draws on all the theories and methods presented above, but places on particular agency on those communities affected by crisis — and certain programmes higher education are already highlighting the benefits of this approach.

Existing Bottom-up innovation in refugee education

Moser-Mercer, Hayba, and Goldsmith (2016) at the NGO InZone and University of Geneva argue that higher education in emergency settings cannot simply replicate traditional models. It must be adapted to context by unlocking “the innovation potential of users” in contextualising materials and in improving accessibility. iACT, which works with refugee children and youth in Central Africa, work closely with refugee beneficiaries to shape and mould programmes to each community Dallain and Scott (2017).

During the Jamiya pilot courses run in 2016–17, social media tools were adopted by local tutors to hurdle connectivity challenges in Zaatari refugee camp (Cremonini, 2017). In conversations with Syrian students since, numerous examples have been highlighted to the Jamiya Project, including students creating revision lecture series and study groups, independent of an educational institution, emphasising the potential initiative that could be harnessed in finding new education solutions with refugee communities.

5. Students as co-designers

As well as adapting and problem solving, the definition of bottom-up innovation also identifies the potential of users and communities to ‘create’. Social innovation also identifies this capacity, with customers moving to a co-producer, rather than simply just consumer. Co-creation and production is also a key part of the Human Centred Design process. And the role of co-creation is not just in finding efficiencies, but also to improve the qualitative impact of the product . So, what potential is there for this to take place in higher education?

a. (Re) Emergence of student co-design

There has been a recent re-emergence of interest in working with students to co-design higher education education, which can partly be viewed as a product of context, with increasingly customer-focussed environments of universities (Bovill et al, 2015). The theoretical grounding for these approaches rests in two areas. Firstly, that enhanced student engagement, through collaborative practices, meaningful experiences and student visibility of how they learn, lead to improved outcomes (Kuh, 2008). Secondly, that engaging with the ‘student voice’ and perspective offers critical insights into the learning environment and moves students from passive to active players, and their feeling like they belong to a learning community (Ruddock, 2007). The aim of these contemporary practices is to make courses more relevant, increase student engagement and, ultimately, improve learning outcomes.

These contemporary approaches exist on a continuum of initiatives exploring the role of students in their education, which also includes critical pedagogy. However, it is far from the dogmatic approach of critical pedagogy theorists such as Freire (1968) and Giroux (2011), who argue for a radical pedagogical approach, superseding the ‘student-teacher contradiction’ to allow students to be become conscious of society’s organisation and take political action.

[An early disclaimer is necessary here: the Jamiya Project does not seek to create a pedagogy of the oppressed refugee, however valuable this may or may not be]

Contemporary approaches can be seen as based in a pragmatic enthusiasm to rethink the assumptions of programme and delivery design to make existing pedagogies more effective, rather than subverting them entirely. Particularly, it is important to note that enhancing student’s role in pedagogical planning and design does not replace the expertise of the teacher and their role in facilitating learning (Breen and Littlejohn, 2000).

b. A range of co-design interventions

Dunne and Zhandstra (2011) have identified a framework for engaging students as change agents.

The two axes of Dunne and Zhandstra’s framework emphasise the balance between student voice vs. student action, and the university as a driver vs. the student as a driver, which is useful in two respects. Firstly, it recognises that there is a gradient to the involvement of co-creation with students in learning. Secondly, it emphasises the institutional or university role relative to the student, re-emphasising the crucial place institutions or teachers having in facilitating and guiding this process.

But what are the points or examples of work along this axes? Bovill, Cook-Sather and Felten (2011) identify three areas where students can effectively be engaged in co-creating teaching, course design, and curricula:

• co-creators or consultants of teaching approaches;
• students as co-creators of course design;
• students as co-creators of curricula, including planning, implementation and evaluation of learning.

The first strategy of student engagement focuses on students advising on teaching methods (Bovill, 2014). In one example from Bryn Mawr College in the US, students meet faculty members to discuss pedagogical challenges and issues, producing a reflective dialogue between students and teachers on how to improve the course. Students act as neutral observers to improve teaching methods but with the ‘student perspective’ to complement traditional peer monitoring and evaluation activities by other teachers. This student voice is considered ‘unique’ and valuable to include in developing pedagogical strategies. Expanding the formal role of students in assessing teaching has also been used at the pioneering Kaos Pilots School in Denmark, a higher education design school, where students review the work of ‘Team Leaders’ (the School’s term for teachers) at the end of each term, even with the power to suggest changes to staff if deemed necessary (Kavanagh, 2012).

A second approach to leveraging student engagement is in course design. In an example from Elon University in the US, ‘course design teams’ of faculty and undergraduate students are constructed and meet on a regular basis over several months to create or recreate a course syllabus. This can cover course goals, pedagogical strategies and learning assessments. Students are seen to contribute critical and constructive perspectives on how materials can create a motivational context and successful lesson planning (Gunckel and Moore, 2005).

Another example of course co-design can be observed in P2P University (P2PU), a platform that facilitates existing online education courses through local learning circles. Through its ‘Faciltator’s Handbook’ (P2PU, 2017), P2PU distributes the logistics supporting delivery of courses to the participants and facilitators on the ground, very much like the distributed complexity model in social innovation highlighted above. Although this course design is limited to only a small part of the course, it highlights the potential impact and efficiency of involving users to adapt courses.

The final strategy is co-creation of curricula. The extent to which curricula are opened up co-creation varies considerably between universities and initiatives. Students can be given parameters within which they have control over output. For example, in Classics undergraduate courses at the University of Reading (UK) students are given a set of words with which to form their own essay questions, such as (Bovill et al, 2015). Whereas, at University College Dublin in Ireland, second and third-year students have been engaged in creation of a whole virtual learning environment to include the key themes of first year geography course (Moore-Cherry and Healey, 2016). Co-creation of curricula can also be introduced across programmes, where specific opportunities for contribution to course design are identified. At Queen Margaret’s University, Edinburgh, as part of an undergraduate programme in environmental activism, faculty led the creation of the curriculum framework, whilst students led decisions on what content they considered useful given their interest and activities outside of university.

c. The impact of co-design

The appeal to universities of this approach through the lense of a business creating a product for ‘consumers’ is clear (however contrary to the academic tradition that is perceived to be). But what are benefits to students of pursuing this approach?

The primary benefit identified in the literature is enhanced meta-cognitive awareness in both staff and students. That is, the understanding of the learning process and how they themselves as individuals learn. This has been seen to improve confidence, autonomy, and learning outcomes (Bovill, Cook-Sather and Felten, 2011; Mercer-Mapstone et al, 2017). Strikingly, this appears to be the case across initiatives, whether or not students receive specific pedagogical training. Only when students are making significant contribution to technical aspects of course design through a prolonged process do students require further explanation and training in pedagogical concept and terminology (Mihans et al, 2008; Kingsley and Normand, 2010).

The second is student motivation and engagement, which is created through a realisation of responsibility for one’s own learning, as well as the presentation of choice and agency in how their learning occurs. Although this can create a sense of risk in both students and teachers, making a curriculum more adaptive and relevant in this way can generate a significant return through increased motivation and a sense of being part of an engaged learning community (Bovill and Deeley, 2017). Furthermore, students feel an increased sense of belonging to the education they are receiving, whichs helps to increase retention (Cherry and Healey, 2016; Mercer-Mapstone et al, 2017).

Finally, both students and staff have been seen to benefit by being more appreciative of the challenges each other face in learning or teaching, and each revises their perspective on their own role in the learning process (Bovill et al, 2015). This is an important distinction — and perhaps improvement — from critical pedagogy: instead of blurring the line between student and teacher, each becomes more cognisant of the other’s role, making the learning relationship between the two more effective.

d. Towards bottom-up innovation in education for refugees

Co-design and co-creation with students as pursued in higher education seeks to benefit students’ metacognitive awareness, their engagement and motivation for study, and improve the relationship between faculty and students. The role of the teacher to facilitate this process is not only emphasised, but multiple combinations of institution and student involvement can be used adaptively in different contexts. Although its sits on a continuum with the traditional of the critical pedagogists, current approaches do not seek to subvert a dominant education system or seek ‘conscientisation’ of a community. Rather, the emphasis is on improving student experience and outcomes by seeking out innovations in teaching, planning and curricula by working with the students.

Higher education models need to adapt to the context of refugees, both in delivery (Moser-Mercer, Hayba and Goldsmith, 2016) and in academic needs, given the impact that displacement has on refugee education (UNHCR, 2016; Gladwell, et al, 2016).

Co-design and co-creation can be seen to reflect the process and the benefits of the bottom-up innovation approaches in humanitarian interventions. It is possible to identify three key areas where pursuing bottom-up approaches can lead to innovative solutions:

• establishing vision and aligning with local context;
• adaptation of curricula and content to context; and
• course delivery and service design.

6. Jamiya Project proposition

This section sets out a proposed model of course design and delivery for refugees, drawing on the bottom-up, co-design and co-creation methods described above. The model focuses on identifying opportunities for co-design with refugee students and communities in higher education programmes. This opportunity-based approach establishes a process of innovation in design and delivery of education in refugee contexts that draws on local aspirations, knowledge and skills of the community to adapt educational models and to improve outcomes.

The Jamiya Project has identified three areas of course design where students and community can contribute: establish a vision for the course; content and curricular; and delivery and learning environment. The model below highlights in light green the areas where students and community can potentially contribute, as well as areas acknowledging the areas that should be led by design and education professionals.

This model could be used both to create new courses or to adapt existing courses. Furthermore, the opportunities presented here do not represent a minimum standard or mandatory checklist. As with Dunne and Zhandstra’s (2011) framework, it should be approached with flexibility and consideration to the practicalities of implementation in the context and its sustainably (Bovill, Cook and Felton, 2011). If education institutions are keen on assisting with solutions to the refugee education crisis, then this model provides a map for negotiation between the need to adapt to context and the institution’s mandate to uphold quality teaching and learning practices.

The impact of this approach could be significant in developing new solutions and delivery models, and contributing to improved student outcomes. At a high level, drawing on bottom-up approaches as described above allows the Jamiya Project to explore new innovative solutions to refugee education at a time of significant need.

Working with students and the community to establish a vision for the course means that programmes can be effectively adapted with local input and ownership, making learning outcomes relevant to local and future contexts.

Using methods of co-design and co-creation of content and curricula will deliver will provide an efficient and empowering method of adapting courses to context, as well as delivering benefits to students in enhancing confidence, learner autonomy, engagement and retention — all issues identified as part of the pilot evaluation. Furthermore, these benefits are not only useful within Jamiya Project programmes, but also in adaptation further along their education journey.

Finally, working with students to co-design the delivery model of the course on the ground will mean that courses are more accessible to students and are responsive to local logistical realities. Codifying a method that draws on local community knowledge generates a template of how to efficiently replicate across different contexts.

7. Conclusion

The lack of education opportunities for refugees has reached a level that necessitates the development of new and diverse solutions. However, the historical pursuit of innovation in the humanitarian sector has taken a top down approach, focussing on organisational processes. Bottom-up innovation, where solutions are adapted or created by or with the local community, offers significant potential to in adapting and contextualising education programming (Betts, Bloom and Weaver, 2015; Moser-Mercer, Hayba and Goldsmith, 2016) by harnessing the experience and knowledge of refugees. The Jamiya Project has already witnessed the potential of student and community initiative during its pilot course in Zaatari refugee camp and subsequent research.

Evidence also exists from higher education courses outside of the refugee context where working with students to adapt or co-create specific parts of course design, teaching or content and curricula has produced significant benefits in student outcomes, engagement and meta-cognitive awareness. This paper argues that such approaches complement bottom-up approaches to innovation and can help to make education for refugees more impactful.

However, there are risks to pursuing bottom-up approaches that should be acknowledged. The difference in the experiential HCD and participatory democratic method throws up an immediate such risk: in pursuing an HCD approach, which members of the community are offering insight and how is this valued? Focussing on those most willing to take part may mean that the experience and knowledge of others who are less powerful are excluded. Secondly, as acknowledged in the critiques of the participatory methodologies, how can local knowledge be engaged with and valued in a way that is not extractive? Finally, while user-led innovations work in consumer markets, in the context of refugees, a process that distributes responsibility away to the user risks handing over responsibilities to those who may be without the necessary the knowledge or means to fulfil them.

Equally, it is important to consider where education differs from the typical subjects considered in bottom-up innovation. Co-design in the context of education emphasises the role of the teacher and the institution to validate the process and knowledge gained from. Bottom-up innovation, when occurring in business or in social services, is often validated by the market i.e. the product replaces a worse one or non-existent one and is purchased by consumers (Betts, Bloom and Weaver, 2015). Validation of education occurs through evaluation of the transmission of knowledge, and recognition of this, by institutions. Therefore, it is essential that teachers and institutions are part of bottom-up innovation in the context of education.

The model presented for co-design with students and communities draws on two areas, bottom-up approaches and co-creation in higher education education, to produce a pragmatic approach to involving communities in developing innovative solutions to the refugee education crisis. As such, the model frames multiple opportunities for co-design, rather than a strict checklist to follow. Although it has not been tested in the field, the Jamiya Project’s existing experience, alongside evidence of other approaches in the humanitarian sector and elsewhere, gives sufficient confidence in the potential of such a model to warrant further exploration of it.

8. Bibliography

Betts and Bloom (2013) The two worlds of humanitarian innovation,, RSC Working Paper Series, 94. Available at: https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/publications/the-two-worlds-of-humanitarian-innovation

Betts, A., Bloom, L., and Weaver, N. (2015) Refugee Innovation: Humanitarian Innovation that Starts with Communities. Available at: https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/files/refugee-innovation-humanitarian-innovation-that-starts-with-communities/refugee-innovation-web-5-3mb-1.pdf

Betts, A. and Collier, P. (2016) Refuge: Transforming a Broken Refugee System. London: Allen Lane.

Bovill, C. (2014) An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA. Innovations in Education and Teaching International Vol. 51 , Iss. 1,2014

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., and Felten, P. (2011) Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16 (2). pp. 133–145

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., Moore-Cherry, N. (2015) Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student-sta partnerships. Higher Education, May 2015. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9896-4

Breen, M.P., and Littlejohn, A. (2000) The Significance of negotiation, in M.P. Breen & A. Littlejohn (Eds) Classroom decision-making: negotiation and process syllabuses in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Brown, T. (2009) Change by design : how design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation, New York, New York : Harper Business.

Brown, T. & Wyatt, J. (2010) Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Available at: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/design_thinking_for_social_innovation

Dallain and Scott (2017) Promising Practices in Refugee Education: Little Ripples. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/583af1fb414fb5b3977b6f89/t/59bdb9c703596e9e8b02d5b8/1505606090047/6_PromisingPractices_iACT_WEB.pdf

Deeley, S. and Bovill, C. (2017) Staff-student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (3) 463–477.

Dunne, E. and Zandstra, R. (2011) Students as change agents — new ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education Available from: www.escalate.ac.uk/8064

Education Commission (2016) The International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity: Report. Available at: http://report.educationcommission.org

Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. (2004) Participation : from tyranny to transformation? : exploring new approaches to participation in development, London: London : Zed.

Gladwell, C., Hollow, D., Robinson, A., Norman, B., Bowerman, E., Mitchell, J., Floremont, F., Hutchinson, P. (2016). Higher education for refugees in low-resource environments: research study. Jigsaw Consult, United Kingdom.

Gunckel, K. L. and Moore, F. M. (2005) Including Students and Teachers in the Co-Design of the Enacted Curriculum. Paper Presented at the NARST 2005 Annual Meeting (Dallas, Texas)

Kavanagh, S. (2012) The student revolution has begun, simply put, it’s a boycott of academia! Kaospilot, Denmark http://www.kaospilot.dk/student_rev_cp.aspx . Available at: https://www.academia.edu/1846609/The_student_revolution_has_begun_simply_put_it_s_a_boycott_of_academia_

Kingsley, C., and Normand, C. (2013). Co-curriculum design in a conceptual age: engaging students in the landscapes of learning. 79–89. Paper presented at International Enhancement Themes Conference: Enhancement and Innovation , Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Legrain, P. (2016) Refugees Work: A humanitarian investment that yields economic divdends. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55462dd8e4b0a65de4f3a087/t/573cb9e8ab48de57372771e6/1463597545986/Tent-Open-Refugees+Work_VFINAL-singlepages.pdf

Loriska, I. Cremonini, L. and SafarJalani, M. (2015) Study to Design a Programme / Clearinghouse Providing Access to Higher Education for Syrian Refugees and Internal Displaced Persons. European Union Delegation to the Syrian Arab Republic: https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5138553

Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, L.S., Matthews, K.E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., and Swaim, K. (2017) A Systematic Literature Review of Students as Partners in Higher Education. International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (1)

Mihans, I. I., Richard, J., Long, D. T., and Felten, P. (2008). Power and expertise: Student-faculty collaboration in course design and the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2(2): 16.

Moore-Cherry, N. M. and Healey, R. L. (2016) Inclusive Partnership: enhancing student engagement in Geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education: February 2016

Moser-Mercer, B. Hayba, E. and Goldsmith, J. (2016) Higher education spaces and protracted displacement: How learner­ centered pedagogies and human ­centered design can unleash refugee innovation. Available at: http://cooperation.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/cooperation/files/Tech4Dev%202016/1216-Moser-Mercer-SE03-HUM_Full%20Paper.pdf

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation. Available at: https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Open-Book-of-Social-Innovationg.pdf

Nielsen, B. F. Sandvik, K. B. and Jumbert, M. G. (2016) How Can Innovation Deliver Humanitarian Outcomes? Challenges and Approaches for Humanitarian Innovation Policy.

P2PU (2017) Facilitator’s Handbook. Available at: https://www.p2pu.org/assets/uploads/learning_circle_downloads/facilitator_handbook.pdf

Supporting Syria (2016) Co-hosts declaration from the Supporting Syria & the Region Conference, London 2016. Available at: https://www.supportingsyria2016.com/news/co-hosts-declaration-of-the-supporting-syria-and-the-region-conference-london-2016/

UNESCO (2016) Global Education Monitoring Report 2016. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/report/2016/education-people-and-planet-creating-sustainable-futures-all/page

UNHCR (2017) Left Behind: Refugee Education In Crisis. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/59b696f44.pdf

UNHCR (2016) Missing Out: Refugee Education In Crisis. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/57beb5144