½¿É«µ¼º½

Collaboration between staff and students is transforming higher education by empowering students as active, democratic participants (Holen et al., 2020). In our BSc Education programme at the University of Manchester, England, we saw an opportunity to reimagine student engagement, beyond that of consumers (Olsen, 2007), to that of cocreators (Bovill, 2019) of Manchester Institute of Education’s Undergraduate Education Research Conference (UERC). As academics, we adopted a partnership approach designing participatory experience, empowering students to take meaningful ownership of their learning, challenging traditional staff-led models, and encouraging shared decision-making.

Together, as students and staff, we explored what a meaningful partnership could look like in practice as we imagined and delivered the conference, a core component of our curriculum. While acknowledging collaboration is complex, we built strong foundations of trust and cooperation in our partnership through an overarching planning group and interconnected sub-teams focused on merchandise, communications, registration and programming.

The student as apprentice and democratic participant

Our partnership approach was shaped by Olsen’s (2007) framework (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Olsen’s framework of student participation

We employed two interconnected roles focused on students:

• as apprentices, learning through doing, gaining practical skills and contributing meaningfully to shared goals; and

• as democratic participants, engaging in shaping decisions and processes alongside staff, helping to direct the course of the collaboration.

This framework enabled us to think differently about student participation, recognising students as both learners and partners with valuable knowledge and skills.

Learning as apprentices

As apprentices, students supported each other, as they developed a wide range of practical and transferable skills. For example, the merchandise team built experience in budgeting, design, sourcing and branding. Whereas the programming team developed their practice in event planning and problem-solving. All teams refined their skills in managing deadlines and communicating with others. For one student this opportunity provided them with ‘skills for the future’ and another to believe they could ‘do more than they thought’.

In sub-teams, students operated with autonomy with decision-making delegated from our core planning group, while collaborating with other sub-teams. This structure encouraged self-leadership, time management, and collegiality that went beyond the traditional classroom experience.

Acting as democratic participants

As democratic participants, students played a central role in shaping the direction, ethos and delivery of the UERC. From deciding the conference theme and programme to selecting keynote speakers, the voices of students were integral to each key decision.

Here we acknowledge the value of diverse forms of knowledge whether academic, personal or lived, to create a collaborative space where:

• power was shared, not imposed
• trust was mutual, not conditional
• decisions were collective, not hierarchical.

As democratic participants, students developed negotiation, leadership and ethical decision-making skills, contributing to both the success of the event and their own personal and professional growth.

Collaboration, communication and power sharing

Our partnership model was underpinned by open communication, mutual respect, and shared power. Shaped by Olsen’s (2007) framework, our planning process moved beyond consultation to delegated decision-making (Arnstein, 2019), where students were entrusted with genuine responsibilities organising UERC, from merchandising to programming.

‘When students are given real responsibility, they don’t just gain knowledge but grow in confidence and vision, together shaping a more democratic experience of higher education.’

The collegiality that developed within and between each sub-team created a space where students and staff could learn from one another. Each group created its own working methods, offered peer support, and embraced the challenge of coproducing a major academic event. We developed not just skills but confidence, agency and meaningful relationships.

Why this matters

Partnerships like ours remain rare in higher education, but their impact is significant. We urge other institutions and educators to:

• trust undergraduates with meaningful responsibilities
• design learning environments that support students as both apprentices and democratic participants
• rethink traditional pedagogies, positioning students as cocreators of knowledge and institutional life.

When students are given real responsibility, they don’t just gain knowledge but grow in confidence and vision, together shaping a more democratic experience of higher education.

Our call… is for partnerships like ours to be the norm, not the exception. Planning the UERC for us demonstrated the power of learning that is shared, purposeful and grounded in trust. As one student concluded: ‘[in such] partnerships we discovered what we are capable of and how much we can grow when trusted with real responsibility for learning’.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (2019). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(1), 24–34.

Bovill, C. (2019). A co-creation of learning and teaching typology: What kind of co-creation are you planning or doing? International Journal for Students as Partners, 3(2), 91–98.

Holen, R., Ashwin, P., Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2020). Student partnership: Exploring the dynamics in and between different conceptualizations. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2726–2737.

Olsen, J. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European university. In P. Maassen, & J. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration. Higher education dynamics (Vol. 19). Springer.

Acknowledgements

Without Dr Choen Yin Chan and Kate Sapin, this approach to our conference would not have been possible. They believed in us creating a culture where we believed in ourselves.