Engaging students as co-producers: A critical reflection on the policy commission model
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395717728407 |
| Author | Alasdair Blair,Steven Griggs,Eleanor Mackillop |
| Published date | 01 November 2018 |
| Date | 01 November 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Learning and Teaching in Politics and International Studies |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395717728407
Politics
2018, Vol. 38(4) 514 –530
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0263395717728407
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
Engaging students as
co-producers: A critical
reflection on the policy
commission model
Alasdair Blair and Steven Griggs
De Montfort University, UK
Eleanor Mackillop
University of Liverpool, UK
Abstract
The teaching of political science has a tendency towards traditional classroom-based learning
environments. This article describes the development of an innovative model of student learning
that takes place outside the bounded nature of the established curriculum through the creation
of a Policy Commission. The Policy Commission established an innovative ‘community of action’
that challenged traditional perceptions of the lone student as a producer of knowledge. This article
describes the work of the Policy Commission, which engaged students in the act of ‘doing Politics’
and discusses the impact that it had on student learning. The article examines the potential of the
Policy Commission model to offer a new form of learning.
Keywords
active learning, co-production, policy commission, politics
Received: 23rd April 2017; Revised version received: 8th July 2017; Accepted: 11th July 2017
Introduction
A key challenge to all disciplines is ensuring that their curriculum provides students with
the necessary range of skills to prepare them to be active global citizens. For political sci-
ence educators, this has been reflected in emphasis being attached to a range of teaching
innovations that have included a focus on role-plays and simulations (Asal and Blake,
2006; Bridge, 2014; Dougherty, 2003; Frombgen et al., 2013), different approaches to
assessment and the importance of feedback (Blair and McGinty, 2012; Blair et al., 2013a,
2013b, 2013c, 2014; Cohen, 2008; Kollars and Rosen, 2013), the use of technology
Corresponding author:
Alasdair Blair, Department of Politics and Public Policy, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
Email: ablair@dmu.ac.uk
728407POL0010.1177/0263395717728407PoliticsBlair et al.
research-article2017
Learning and Teaching in Politics and
International Studies
Blair et al. 515
(Holland et al., 2013; Ulbig and Notman, 2012), the development of skills such as writing
policy briefs and giving oral presentations (Franklin et al., 2014; Trueb, 2013), the provi-
sion of placements (Curtis et al., 2009; Curtis, 2012), and the integration of research
methods (Adriaensen et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 2014). In more recent years, there has been
a growing emphasis on the adoption of active and problem-based learning approaches to
teaching as a means of developing student understanding and competency with regard to
research proficiency, communication skills, and the art of giving presentations (Ishiyama,
2013; Johnson, 2016; McInerney and Adshead, 2013).
Whereas this literature has tended to focus on establishing learning environments that
create more involved opportunities for students to learn about the subject, less attention
has been attached to the role of student as a producer or creator of knowledge. This is
despite the fact that the concept of a student as producer has been increasingly debated in
recent years. In the United Kingdom, this has been evident through the work of a group of
scholars led by Mike Neary at the University of Lincoln who have argued for student influ-
ence and control as a means of challenging the neo-liberal underpinning of mass higher
education (Neary and Saunders, 2016; Neary and Winn, 2009, 2017). In this context, the
student as producer model as advocated by Neary is a subversive one that seeks to chal-
lenge the fundamental underpinning of higher education as opposed to merely having a
focus on greater levels of student engagement and enabling more student control. This has
instead been the approach that has tended to underpin much of the literature which has
focused on harnessing student creativity and enthusiasm through the likes of an under-
graduate student journal and giving students the control to undertake simulation exercises
(Barrios and Weber, 2006; Frombgen et al., 2013; Griffin, 2011; Obendorf and Randerson,
2012). Within the political science learning and teaching communities, the roots of this
work on students as co-creators or co-producers of learning can partly be traced to the
broader civic engagement literature (e.g. Boyer, 1990, 1996) where there is a considerable
body of literature that has included students engaging with voter registration drives
(Bardwell, 2011; Bennion, 2006), participating in political campaigns (Elder et al., 2007),
volunteering in civic communities, and undertaking research-led placements with the likes
of local government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and voluntary organisa-
tions (Curtis et al., 2009; Curtis and Blair, 2010a, 2010b; Van Assendelft, 2008).
This article contributes to this co-production literature by reflecting on a Policy
Commission initiative, whereby students worked with academic staff to create policies
that were then presented to policy-makers. It reflects on the experience of running the
Policy Commission at De Montfort University over three academic years from 2013 to
2016. Unlike many other pedagogic initiatives, the Policy Commission was open to par-
ticipation from all university students, albeit with a disciplinary home in the Department
of Politics and Public Policy. The Commission required students to work together to pro-
duce policy responses, which resulted in them having to compromise on their ideas and to
negotiate among themselves. It also brought these ideas into a public environment through
presentations to policy-makers and the local populace, and in so doing assisted in building
resilience and self-confidence in the students. Yet while such outcomes tend to be empha-
sised by those who argue in favour of co-production models of learning, the Policy
Commission also raised issues about the nature of responsibility in a co-production model
between staff and students. This was because the Policy Commission went beyond views
of co-production that just focus on students being given greater autonomy in their work,
getting them to share their work with others, and engaging them as researchers. In this
context, the Policy Commission sought to genuinely engage students as co-producers
To continue reading
Request your trial