Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Reception date: 22 January 2018 • Acceptance date: 13 March 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.10.2.833
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199 (ISSN 2304-070X)
2018 Open Education Global Conference Selected Papers
Collaborative design of Open Educational Practices:
An Assets based approach
Kate Helen Miller
University of the West of Scotland (United Kingdom)
kate.miller@uws.ac.uk
Ronald McIntyre
The Open University (United Kingdom)
ronald.macintyre@open.ac.uk
Gary McKenna
University of the West of Scotland (United Kingdom)
gary.mckenna@uws.ac.uk
Abstract
This paper outlines a collaborative approach to the design of open educational resources (OER) with community
stakeholders so they can be shared with other community practitioners openly, online and repurposed for other
contexts. We view curriculum not as something that educationalists provide but rather something that emerges
as learners engage with an educational context. We draw on a Project consisting of a partnership between ve
European Institutions of Higher Education and a range of community stakeholder groups. The partnership will
develop a suite of OER for community workers who are implementing assets based approaches in different
contexts. We argue that these approaches are negotiated in that one cannot decide how they might operate in a
given context without engaging in deliberative discussion. The challenge for us as open education practitioners
is how to turn those deliberations into OER and to highlight the important pedagogical aspect of the design
process.
Keywords: Collaboration; Design; Assets based Approaches; Open Educational Practice; Collaborative
Open Educational Resources
Introduction
The paper draws on research carried out for the Erasmus+ funded project ‘Designing Collaborative
Educational Resources (COERS) for Assets Based Community Participation (ABCP) across Europe’
(Assets Com) (ref. 2016-1-UK01-KA203-024403). The project commenced in January 2017 and is
funded for two years. This paper focuses on the question posed by a collaborative approach to the
design of Open Educational Resources (OER): how to design open educational resources (OER)
with community stakeholder groups so they can be shared with other community practitioners openly,
online and repurposed for other contexts. Central to this question is one of practice: what makes our
educational practice open? As educational practitioners in academia, who focus on social justice and
community development, engaging with community stakeholder groups to conduct research, shape
curriculum development and pedagogic practice is familiar. As in many practice-based disciplines,
curriculum is developed and emerges from and through a deeper understanding of context (Illeris,
2011), and is developed in, for and through practice. The focus in, for and through is important as it
surfaces an underlying pedagogic assumption within practice-based learning, learning arises from,
takes place in, and is for practice (Evans, Hodkinson, Rainbird & Unwin, 2006). The paper looks at
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199
Kate Helen Miller et al.
192
how this approach might be applied to the development of OER. Using our work on a cross European
project, it teases out some of the challenges, principally focusing on how to ensure the OER draw from
and speak to practice, through the development of what we term ‘Collaborative Open Educational
Resources’ (COERs). As open education practitioners we look to address two challenges. The rst
is concerned with contextualisation, with taking learning arising from a deep examination of practice
in a particular context, and design something that speaks to practitioners across a range of contexts.
The second challenge arises from our solution to the rst. Our work underlines the importance of
not conceptualising learning contexts as containers primarily consisting of content but rather as
relational and uid effects of practice (Edwards & Miller, 2007). As educational designers we need
to attend to how learning takes place across a range of learning contexts. So we ask how can we as
educators facilitate the recontextualisation of learning? To understand context in relational terms has
effects on how we conceptualise the mobilizing of learning and associated pedagogic practices. For
the project team one way this has occurred is through deliberative reective discussion, and therefore
we propose that the COERs need to foster a similar deliberative reection in and on practice (Dewey
[1910] 2012) both for the design team and for those using and repurposing the COERs for different
contexts.
Before addressing these challenges, the paper provides a short overview of the transnational
partnership on which the paper is based and an introduction to assets based approaches to
community development. It then explores the approach to design of educational resources that is
being taken and the associated challenges. We illustrate these rst with a discussion on how the
project team has used assets based deliberative processes in our approach to research and design
followed by an example of how this approach is extended to working with one of the community
stakeholder groups in Scotland. Through these examples we explore the deliberative process in
which we engaged with our partners in Higher Education and our community stakeholders and what
this means for the development of collaborative and open educational resources.
Background and Context
The purpose of the research and the larger project is to share innovation in practice and generate
new knowledge in relation to both the implementation of assets based approaches to working with
communities and the design of open educational resources. Asset based approaches are based on
a set of assumptions about the self and community which have implications for educational practice,
therefore before looking at an example, it is worth saying a little about the transnational partnership,
assets based approaches and the way curriculum is developed in our discipline.
Transnational Partnership
The Assets Com project is based on a transnational partnership which was developed with the
specic intention of sharing innovative practice and generating new knowledge. The partnership
consists of ve Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): The University of the West of Scotland in
Scotland, the University of Maribor in Slovenia, the University of Bologna in Italy, the University
of Laurea in Finland and the University of Southern Denmark in Denmark. Each HEI is working
with a range of community stakeholder groups in their geographical locals. The project is funded
under the Erasmus+ programme. The Key action is to develop strategic partnerships for cooperation,
innovation and the exchange of good practices. The priorities of the project are to develop innovative
and open inter-professional educational resources that can be used in the further training of public
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199
Collaborative design of Open Educational Practices: An Assets based approach 193
sector practitioners and a range of community focused practitioners. The resources should provide a
means of equipping practitioners with the inter-professional skills needed to foster inter-agency and
inter-generational connectivity, mobilise existing community assets and engage in pioneering forms
of collaboration. In so doing practitioners will become able to nurture increased participation and
social capital and reduce levels of fear and distrust in the most disadvantaged communities across
Europe. Importantly the proposed project will address the implementation of the 2013 Communication
on Opening up Education (European Commission, 2013) by helping learning institutions, teachers
and learners to acquire digital skills and learning methods and supporting the development and
availability of open educational resources.
Assets Based Approaches and Community Development
The ‘Asset-Based Community Development’ (ABCD) approach was developed for the sustainable
development of communities based on their strengths and focuses on ‘potential’ and not the ‘decits’
of an individual or community – with the aim of empowering both individuals and communities to
take full control of their lives (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). The ABCD framework consists of four
community-led building processes which are as follows:
1 mapping assets – realising individual and community capacities;
2 building relationships – strengthening links among local assets for mutually benecial problem-
solving within the community;
3 mobilising – for economic development and information sharing;
4 convening – assembling the community to develop a vision and a plan – bring together as
broadly a representative group as possible to embody the will and wishes of the community.
As an approach it has varying political support in different countries and also varying recognition as
a distinct approach to working with communities. Research in diverse parts of the world reports some
of the positive impacts of these approaches. Assets based approaches have been implemented in
‘Community Integration Initiatives’ (CII) in Scottish and Danish locations to help build local capacity
for action and collective action (Deuchar & Bone, 2015). The capacity of ABCD; how it operates in
practice; and the types of outcomes that result from its use, indicate that, when implemented within
different communities in the Philippines, Ethiopia and South Africa, ABCD harnessed: (1) ‘power within’
through reversing internalised powerlessness; (2) ‘power with’ by strengthening opportunities for
collective action; and (3) ‘power to’ by emphasising and building local capacity for action successfully
(Mathie, Cameron & Gibson, 2017).
However, with assets based approaches roots in bottom up activism and alongside increasingly
top down policy initiatives, community workers can nd themselves in the middle with little support.
Our project aimed to look at how to support these workers through the collaborative development
of OER. We started by investigating what the challenges were across the partner countries with
regard to the professional development of community workers who are implementing assets
based approaches in their work with communities. Appreciative inquiry (AI) is a key method with
in assets based approaches used in action research to highlight positive aspects of practice.
The founding concept of AI is to be inclusive and collaborative and to focus on building on the
positive. Through this identifying of ‘good practice’ in communities it soon became clear that there
is no simple and straightforward translation of this concept or ‘good practice’ across national and
professional contexts. It should not come as a surprise that an approach that asks practitioners to
attend carefully to their context articulates theory and practice differently across different contexts.
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199
Kate Helen Miller et al.
194
Indeed the value of a comparative analysis comes from these differences. However, these differences
also provide a signicant design challenge for us as open educational practitioners, how to create
a resource that draws on the deep understanding from a particular context while speaking to
practitioners across contexts. Before addressing this challenge directly we look at how this in depth
engagement has arisen.
Designing with Stakeholders
Our approach to designing OEP draws together established practices in community development
around the inclusion of practitioners and learners in the development of curriculum with work in
participatory design (Macintyre 2016; Macintyre 2014a). For us the P in OEP means thinking about
how our educational practice is shaped by openness. However, it also means thinking through
how P for pedagogy and participation, in particular how disciplinary values around pedagogy
and participation then shape and reshape openness. For example just as ABCD emphasises
people’s capacity, so participatory approaches in design emphasise the need to work with people,
whether they are practitioners, learners, or clients. This is more than surveying needs; the focus
is on using the strengths and assets of individuals and communities and bringing them together to
instigate positive change. In the case of participatory design it typically involves working directly
with people to develop educational content throughout the process. Participatory approaches
recognise people as experts in their own lives. This means the role of the designer or academic
is not as ‘expert’, but as a facilitator of a process to help translate those insights into education
material (Malpass, 2017). Engagement may vary through the design process, this approach is time
consuming and challenging for all those taking part and previous work with marginalised groups
found much of our time was spent building condence amongst participants and establishing their
right to participate (Macintyre, 2014b). This is where the element of appreciative enquiry can
make a big difference to how readily the participants feel able to contribute their expertise from
their own lived experiences.
Even when expert practitioners feel condent to talk about their ‘good practice’, their expert
status is often based on a set of routines and tacit assumptions which can be difcult to articulate.
It is difcult because knowing is in, for and through practice, it is about process, with each process
of knowing apparently locked into a particular context. However, working with practice focused
academics, and community workers deeply embedded in practice networks, does provide an
opportunity to look inside those contexts. Allowing us to engage practitioners in deliberative
discussions to share and develop critical questions about practice as part of shared sense making.
Drawing together insights from across contexts we employed a cross case comparative and
analytical process to surface these tacit assumptions and interrogate them through the lens of
assets based approaches.
Addressing our rst challenge, to develop an approach which allows us see deeply into practice
in and between particular contexts is useful to us as researchers, but how does this researchers’
way of knowing become an educational resource. As researchers often we look to create a
coherent and closed narrative, as open education practitioners our challenge is to design
and develop an OER that allows practitioners to use these in depth case studies generated
from one context to shape their learning in, for and through practice in other spaces. Through
engaging with our partners and stakeholders in a collaborative curriculum design process we
started to understand the design of educational resources as being about much more than
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199
Collaborative design of Open Educational Practices: An Assets based approach 195
designing content. We realised the core of ABCD approaches was how people engage, our role
was to be open about what was learnt but to focus on capturing the detail of learning processes
and understanding what practitioners value and how they learn. Using examples from the project
cross national partnership and the Scottish context we explore this in more detail in the next
section.
Collaborative Open Educational Resources in Practice
Any question about what to do requires a sense of the “right thing to do”, and “how we know what
we know”. Just as design researchers interrogate their own practice, probing “what works”, the
tacit routines and assumptions based on past success (Corbett, 2005) or indeed failure (Cope,
2011). As researchers we are used to the idea of being reexive, attending to our place in “the
eld” and how we are placed by others. Our identity as research practitioners means we also
tend to follow particular norms, sharing these norms with the expert practitioners (Whitehead &
McNiff 2006), framing issues in similar ways. This framing and reframing often involves complex
reasoning, as Dewey ([1910] 2012) notes the “double movement” of reaching down into the
everyday detail, while also reaching out, and it is vital that we attend to how all actors, including
ourselves, move between those positions. Therefore through the research and development
processes of the Assets com project we have been paying attention to our own learning journey
and the deliberative processes of reaching down into the everyday detail of practice and the
collaborative reaching out across our varying partner community contexts to make sense of our
own and each other’s practices. In essence, we have been modeling assets based approaches
through our own practice in order to notice and take note of our own deliberative processes and
their outcomes.
Through the timeline of the project (Figure 1) there are a range of collaborative practices and
deliberative processes through which we are engaging our academic par tners and our community
stakeholder groups. To date (month 15 of the project) we have worked through the rst three
intellectual outputs to identify gaps/challenges in the professional development of community
workers who are implementing assets based approaches and developed detailed case studies
across our partners national contexts collaboratively with our community stakeholders. We have
also carried out a critical review of case based learning and produced a learning and facilitation
framework. We are now at the stage of planning our COERs. As the partners worked with the
community stakeholder groups on the various outputs required for the project the relationships and
collaborative processes of building shared understanding and insights were developed. As well as
attending to the content and themes it became apparent that context was far more than a container
of content but importantly is shaped and formed through the practices and process which constitute
it. In case based learning we have tension around how to draw on the detailed insights from particular
contexts while also leaving enough space for practitioners to see themselves in the context and
how it might apply to their own practice. Through engaging with partners our speculations about
use of the COERS started to focus on how we might use the case study to open up the process
of how the practitioners know what to do when certain situations arise. Through sharing the case
studies and generating the critical questions that arose through our own sense making processes
we were able to start to make the tacit knowledge embedded in practice more explicit. In addition
we are beginning to uncover some of the often unnoticed practices of knowledge making across the
different community stakeholder groups.
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199
Kate Helen Miller et al.
196
Next we describe an example from Scotland where the researches have been working closely with
an arts based community stakeholder group to illustrate how this action research is moving forward
and addressing the challenges identied above.
The example group is a social enterprise in the South West of Scotland that is rmly founded on an
assets based approach in all the work it does with its local communities, and in terms of developing
the organisation and their staff. Through the research process we used an appreciative enquiry
model. We asked staff about their practice, we watched them work with the young people, we asked
the young people about what they were doing and what they made of it. We asked the managers
about how the organisation was managed and how staff were trained and developed as assets based
practitioners. We asked what the challenges were and how they addressed them. Relationships were
established between the researchers, the staff and the young people. We explained what the Assets
Com project was trying to do in terms of sharing innovation and generating new knowledge. We
negotiated how the project could benet the organisation and how the organisation could help the
project achieve its aims and objectives and at the same time further the aims and objectives of their
organisation.
Through this engagement over a period of time we moved beyond passive observation of the
use of ABCD, and became directly involved in the process. During an observed session one of
the managers demonstrated an approach he used when working with the young people to explore
issues of self-identity, family identity and community identity. A process that enabled young people
to view themselves as creative people that were able to express themselves through the medium of
art and develop positive views about themselves, their families and their communities. Intrigued by
the exercise, we asked the partner if this same approach could be used as a tool for professional
development of the practitioners who are working with the young people, and whether they would
work with us to adapt the approach for this purpose. The partner agreed and the facilitator captured
the process on lm and wrote up an account of the process and the critical questions that arose from
it. This was then presented to the trans national partnership and used as a tool to generate further
critical questions about what was happening in that context and what could be learnt from that and
used in other contexts across professional and national boundaries.
Figure 1: Timeline of the Assets Com project
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199
Collaborative design of Open Educational Practices: An Assets based approach 197
The processes of working with the community group to produce the educational resource for the
purpose of professional development and piloting it with the staff of that organisation, and then
capturing that process to share with the project partners, involved a certain amount of stepping
into and out of the learning context physically and intellectually. It also involved moving elements
generated in one context to another through video capture and through descriptions provided by
the researchers. Moving from particular sets of social and situated practices to the general requires
you to speculate, to imagine how and what is useful in one place could be useful for others in other
places with different personal, family, community, professional and national contexts. Of course we
could have relied on our own professional judgement, however this seemed at odds with ABCD. This
process of attempting to align our design process with the ABCD values pushed us to think about
who and what are the important actors that constitute a learning context and how we might work with
these through the design process to maximise learning from the COERs.
So in keeping with participatory approaches and ABCD we facilitated a series of events through
our partner project meetings in the various national and community contexts, where research
practitioners worked with the community practitioners. The aim was to draw on embodied
theoretical and practice knowledge from across the academic and practice spectrum as a way
to sense check our speculations about what was useful. However, we found participants used
the practice knowledge embedded in the context to generate new practices and new theoretical
insights which we believe will be useful to a broad audience of community practitioners working with
assets based approaches. The collaborative approach to designing the OERs acted as a stimulus
for all these learning processes to occur and worked as a pedagogical tool to stimulate the learning
and knowledge creation process. It allowed us to see into and then beyond the context to trace
the contextualising actors, and in doing so made us realise that in ABCD approaches the important
questions are about process and about how people learn together. Our approach to research is
based on those same values, and so it follows that these values also inform our approach to the
development of educational resources.
Moving between these positions involves us thinking about the past and our experiences and
speculating about the future (Di Salvo, 2012). In that sense the challenge faced by expert practitioners
is the same one faced by designers of educational resources. Imagining what happens once an
OER is “out in the wild” who will use it and how it will be used is often speculative. You make
judgements on how to structure the course based on your experience, and on noticing what practices
constitute your context and the contexts of others. We have done this through working collaboratively
cultivating open educational practices that are underlined by an assets based approach, providing
opportunities across the partnership for us to speculate on the future use of these resources and
working collaboratively to design them based on those imagined uses.
Conclusion
We still have a lot of work to do. However, we can draw out some important insights about the
development of COERs based on the work we have done already. By employing an assets based
approach to our research, using it as a lens through which to diffract multiple cross cultural
practices, and then letting them ow through our development of COERs we start to see the
spectrum and varying tones of these practices, and discern appropriate pedagogic practices. This
approach to open educational practice focuses on the participatory and pedagogic component of
openness, and the role of assets based approaches in this process. We propose that by using an
appreciative enquiry approach throughout from the research, through the project partnership, and
the design process, we are able to promote an openness to knowledge generation and knowledge
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199
Kate Helen Miller et al.
198
sharing that holds potential for future directions in open education. While we have individually
written about the participatory element of open educational practice (e.g. Macintyre 2016) we
have not, so far, woven our work on pedagogy (e.g. Mannion, Miller, Gibb & Goodman, 2009) and
the pedagogical challenge of identifying resonance across practice contexts into the established
OER/OEP literature. In part this relates to the stage of the work. However, it also relates to the
challenge of articulating what an open pedagogy is, and what freedoms it might afford (Lane &
Van Drop 2011).
In considering the freedoms afforded by an openness and the pedagogic implications that ow from
this we have drawn on work around OER and Widening Participation, in particular action research
into the social, structural and situational barriers to learning suggests a focus on par tnerships and
participatory approaches helps situate practice and understand the place of openness in peoples
learning journey (Cannell & Macintyre 2017). From this we learnt a great deal about how the
freedoms of OER have been and continue to be constrained, but not necessarily what we needed to
do to deal with those barriers. Our approach in this work has been to use assets based approached
to inform our work with communities and practitioners in a way that moves beyond collaborative
content production into working with partners to develop appropriate pedagogic practices or open
educational practices.
However, we have also drawn on our discipline, exploring pedagogic practice, and the values
central to ABCD. We found an assets based approach to exploring the how fosters an open approach
to learning for all involved in the journey. As researchers and open education practitioners it meant
allowing those to ow through research into learning design, and led to us nding common ground with
practitioners. From this developed a deeper understanding of practitioners’ experience. However, the
deliberative processes that occurred across practice, academic and national boundaries enabled the
processes of recontextualisation to unfold. The recontextualisation of learning across these variously
bounded spaces occurred through a choreography of project wide encounters that brought together
various different groups of people, ideas, and artefacts through a range of virtual and face to face
deliberative encounters. While this approach worked for us we are not suggesting assets based
approaches as a model or set of values that apply universally, we understand the particularity of
our experience. We simply suggest that applying them as professional and personal values fosters
a certain openness to practice. Through engaging in a deliberative discourse with practice and
practitioners we have underlined the importance of conceiving of context not as a container for
content but as a relational effect of practices, it is not just about what, the how matters as we explore
how to use the freedoms afforded by OER to share learning across and between different contexts
and shape new open educational practices.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the funding from the Erasmus + programme which made the
project ‘Designing Collaborative Educational Resources (COERS) for Assets Based Community
Participation (ABCP) across Europe’ (Assets com) (ref. 2016-1-UK01-KA203-024403) on which
this paper is based possible. We would also like to acknowledge the work of our colleagues in
our par tner Higher Education Institutions and all of the community stakeholders participating in
the project.
This paper was presented at the 2018 Open Education Consortium Global Conference, held in
Delft (The Netherlands) in April 24th-26th 2018 (https://conference.oeconsortium.org/2018), with
whom Open Praxis established a partnership. After a pre-selection by the Conference Committee,
the paper underwent the usual peer-review process in Open Praxis.
Open Praxis, vol. 10 issue 2, April–June 2018, pp. 191–199
Collaborative design of Open Educational Practices: An Assets based approach 199
References
Cannell, P. & Macintyre, R. (2017). Free open online resources in workplace and community
settings – a case study on overcoming barriers. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning,
19(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.5456/WPLL.19.1.111
Cope, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604–623.
Corbett, A.C. (2005). Experiential Learning Within the Process of Opportunity Identication and
Exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 473–491.
Deuchar, R. & Bone, T. (2015). The Impact of Assets-Based Community Integration Initiatives in
Scottish and Danish Locations. SIPR Research Summary Briefing. No. 20. The Scottish Institute
for Policing Research. Retrieved from http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Research_Summaries/
Research_Summary_20.pdf
Dewey, J. [1910] (2012). How We Think. Martino Publishing: CT, USA.
Di Salvo, C. (2012). Adversarial Design. MIT Press: MA Cambridge.
Edwards, R. & Miller, K. (2007). Putting the context into learning. Pedagogy, Culture and Society,
15(3), 263–74.
European Commission (2013). Communication Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and
learning for all through new Technologies and Open Educational Resources /COM/2013/0654
final/. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0654
Evans, K., Hodkinson, P., Rainbird, H. & Unwin, L. (2006). Improving Workplace Learning. Routledge:
London.
Illeris, K. (2011). The Fundamentals of Workplace Learning: Understanding How People Learn in
Working Life. Routledge: London.
Kretzmann, J. & Mcknight, J. (1993). Building Communities from the inside out: a path towards build-
ing and mobilising a communities assets. The Asset-Based Community Development Institute.
Evanston, Illinois: ACTA Publications.
Lane, A., & Van Dorp, K. J. (2011). Open educational resources and widening participation in higher
education: Innovations and lessons from open universities. In EDULEARN11, the 3rd annual
International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 4th-5th of July 2011,
Barcelona. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/29201/1/OPEN_EDUCATIONAL_RESOURC-
ES_AND_WIDENING_PARTICIPATION_andy.pdf
Macintyre, R. (2014a). Uncertainty, Learning Design, and Inter disciplinarity: Systems and Design Think-
ing in the School Classroom. In Designs for Learning 4th International Conference, 6th–9th of May
2014, The University of Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/40482
Macintyre, R. (2014b). Open Design and Social Inclusion in Practice. In Designing Learning
Landscapes: Mobile, Open, Inclusive, 30th of May, Goldsmiths University of London.
Macintyre, R. (2016). Approaching Participatory Design in “Citizen Science”. In Design for Learning:
5th International Conference designing new learning ecologies, 18th–20th of May, Copenhagen.
Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/46337
Malpass, M. (2017). Critical Design in Context: History Theory and Practice. Bloomsbury Academic
Publishing: London.
Mannion, G., Miller, K., Gibb, I. & Goodman, R. (2009). Reading, Writing, Resonating: striking chords
across the contexts of students’ everyday and college lives. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17(3),
323–339.
Mathie, A., Cameron, J. & Gibson, K. (2017). Asset-based and citizen-led development: Using a
diffracted power lens to analyze the possibilities and challenges. Progress in Development
Studies, 17(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993416674302
Whitehead J., & McNiff J. (2006). Action Research Living Theory, Sage: London.
Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License