Artistic co-creation: How art students view co-creation and how it could be integrated in the arts curriculum

Abstract

Co-creation has been used across disciplines and within the arts for quite some time. This article aims to analyze what students from a university devoted to the arts understand by the term “co-creation” and how these students suggest evaluating co-creation. It also aims to compare this with the professional’s perception to relate the curriculum to what is relevant in the cultural industry. Thus, we discuss how co-creation processes could be integrated into the arts curriculum Higher Education. Through the application of this research to arts education, students, professionals, and communities can benefit from more enriched, engaged experiences with art.

Keywords

Co-creation artistic education academic service learning experiential learning collaboration

Introduction

If the reader is asked to define what “co-creation” is, one can reasonably expect a reply that revolves around the concept of “creating together.” However, what this “together” means and how the creation is understood will be viewed differently depending on the reader’s profile. Co-creation has become an often-quoted term, but its meaning is still to be fixed and, as it travels across disciplines, new nuances may be added.

This article aims to analyse what students from a university devoted to the arts understand by the term “co-creation” and how these students suggest evaluating co-creation. It also aims to take a step forward and discuss how co-creation processes could be integrated in the arts curriculum in higher education institutions.

This research is related to the TRACTION³ project and builds on the study developed by Matamala and Soler-Vilageliu (2022). TRACTION is an H2020 project that aims to research artistic co-creation as a tool for social transformation. It focuses specifically on opera co-creation and includes a strong technological component. The project is developing three trials: SAMP is working in a prison in Leiria with young inmates and has produced the community opera “O tempo (somos nós)” (Time (As We Are)). LICEU is co-creating with neighbours from the Raval district in Barcelona and has produced the opera “La gata perdida” (The Lost Cat). Irish National Opera has co-created with communities across Ireland a VR Opera, “Out of the Ordinary/As Ann Gnách.” The project includes a strong evaluation component, which is developed at different levels: (a) evaluation of the technology in terms of user experience, (b) evaluation of the co-creation process and output, and (c) evaluation of the social impact. The evaluation is built on qualitative methodologies such as focus groups or interviews with different participants. To facilitate the thematic analysis of all this wealth of qualitative information, it was considered useful to have a shared map of key indicators as a starting point. To decide on these key indicators that can help assess the impact of a co-creation process, 19 relevant stakeholders from the field of community art were interviewed (Matamala and Soler-Vilageliu, 2022). These interviews with experts in co-creation were complemented with a series of written interviews with art students, as it was considered relevant to have a complementary perspective. This paper focuses on the data obtained from the interviews with art students.

This article begins with an overview of what co-creation in the arts means according to different authors, acknowledging the terminological diversity. It also highlights the benefits associated with artistic co-creation. Co-creation in higher education reports on the status of co-creation in higher education and Co-creation in the higher education arts curriculum puts emphasis on the arts curriculum. Methodology explains the methodology followed in our research, with a focus on the participants, procedures, and data analysis performed. Results: students’ understanding of co-creation reports on the results concerning the definitions, and A proposal: how to integrate co-creation in the arts curriculum summarises the main findings. The article continues with some proposals on how co-creation could be integrated in the arts curriculum, before moving on to the conclusions, which include some suggestions for further research.

Artistic co-creation and its benefits

Co-creation has been used across disciplines with a meaning that has not always been stable. As expressed by Rill and Hämäläinen (2018), who provide an overview of co-creation in marketing, organisational development and design, the “term is so general that it is frequently used without consideration of what it actually refers to” (22). As explained by Bendapudi and Leone (2003), early works on the topic in the field of business and marketing focused on analysing the consequences of customer participation in the production of services, often in terms of productivity gain, and on identifying the motivations of the customers willing to participate in production. The seminal work by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000) introduced the concept of “co-creation,” which was later defined by Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010: 4) as “the practice of developing systems, products, or services through collaboration with customers, managers, employees, and other company stakeholders.” With a wider perspective, Rill and Hämäläinen (2018) suggest the following definition: “Co-creation is a creative process that taps into the collective potential of groups to generate insights and innovation. Specifically, it is a process, in which teams of diverse stakeholders are actively engaged in a mutually empowering act of collective creativity with experiential and practical outcomes” (23). They do not define the specificities of these diverse stakeholders because they consider that “co-creation as a process is not limited to any specific combination of participants.”

Co-creation is generally understood as a process that adds value. Galvagno and Dalli (2014) carry out a bibliographical co-citation-based analysis and conclude that co-creation is “the joint, collaborative, concurrent, peer-like process of producing new value, both materially and symbolically” (644). They acknowledge the “ongoing debate in the literature about the differences between co-creation and co-production” (Cova et al., 2013; Grönroos and Voima, 2013), but “consider co-creation as a more general concept that encompasses all the specific theoretical and empirical occurrences in which companies and customers generate value through interaction” (644), in line with Vargo and Lusch (2008). Also through a citation analysis, Rashid et al. (2018) approach value co-creation (VCC) and provide a summary of different definitions of the term, ranging from the active collaboration of producers and customers when developing new products to collective creativity. VCC is also the focus of Ranjan and Read (2016), who carry out a systematic review and come up with two primary conceptual dimensions associated with this term: co-production, meaning the consumer’s active participation in production, and value-in-use, meaning the actual consumer’s usage process.

If we move to the artistic field, the term “co-creation” is also recent and not fully established and follows suit of other terms such as “community art” or “participatory art.” The former is defined as “the creation of art by professional artists and non-professional artists” (Matarasso, 2019: 48), whereas the latter is defined by the same author as “the creation of art as a human right, by professional and non-professional artists, co-operating as equals, for purposes and to standards they set together, and whose processes, products and outcomes cannot be known in advance” (2019: 49).

Focusing specifically on audiences, Brown et al. (2011) refer to co-creation as one of the possible stages in audience involvement in the arts. They suggest a spectrum with receptive audiences on one side and participatory audiences on the other side. Within participatory audiences, Brown et al. (2011) differentiate between: crowd-sourcing—the audience chooses or contributes towards an artistic product—co-creation—“audience members contribute something to an artistic experience curated by a professional artist”—and audience-as-artist—audience members “substantially take control of the artistic experience” (5). Walmsley (2013: 116) also puts the emphasis on audience participation and, although not being able to provide a single definition of co-creation, he identifies common traits, such as collaboration, agency, interaction, invention, experience, value, and exchange.

The discourse in the arts has pointed out the benefits for those participating in co-creation activities. Literature such as the Artlift report (Baker et al., 2017) has shown the benefits of co-creating between artists and community members. Findings showed improvements in wellbeing and social inclusion for those participating in co-creation projects (especially for community members). More specifically, participants developed a greater sense of happiness, independence and confidence, and five key aspects were identified: friendship, reduced isolation, sense of achievement, reduced medication, and reconnection (i.e., perceived improvements in mental health by exploring other opportunities). Similarly, Hacking et al. (2008) pointed out those same benefits but also highlighted the effect on empowerment. Matarasso (1997) gathers a list of 50 benefits, which include increasing people’s confidence, building new skills, stimulating interest in the arts, promoting tolerance, and providing a forum for intercultural understanding, among many others.

In the framework of the TRACTION project (Matarasso, 2021), co-creation is viewed as a creation that results from the interaction of professionals and non-professionals. There is not one single form of co-creation but a spectrum, with less professional control at one end and more professional control at the other end. As part of the TRACTION project, Matamala and Soler-Vilageliu (2022) analyse 19 interviews with a wide variety of stakeholders from Portugal, Barcelona, and Ireland experienced in co-creation. They are cultural managers and government representatives, but also professional and non-professional artists. The interviewees explain how they would define the term “co-creation” and how they would assess it. The thematic analysis of the interviews highlights a series of topics: collaboration is seen as central in any co-creation process, but the profile and role of the participants is not viewed unanimously. Most participants refer to the participation of professionals and non-professionals, but the power relationships between them is the object of diverging views: many consider participants at the same level of the artist whereas others acknowledge that someone is needed to take responsibility and leadership.

Co-creation in higher education

The model of VCC is transferred to the field of higher education by Dollinger et al. (2018), who consider that VCC in higher education is “the process of students’ feedback, opinions, and other resources such as their intellectual capabilities and personalities, integrated alongside institutional resources, which can offer mutual value to both students and institutions” (210). They adopt the two-dimensional model by Ranjan and Read (2016) and research the individual processes under both dimensions: knowledge, equity, and interaction in co-production, and experience, personalisation, and relationship in value-in-use. They identify innovation, knowledge and relationships as key benefits of this model of VCC in higher education.

Kumari et al. (2019) also link co-creation in higher education to social innovation. They explain how higher education institutions should encourage collaborative learning techniques since they can help students engage with society and generate collective solutions facilitating social innovation. According to the authors, the key components of social innovation are to facilitate a process where learning and knowledge exchange occurs and where collaboration promotes changes in relations and social interaction. This empowers the collective to develop new ideas and actions to address social issues in a sustainable way (Kumari et al., 2019: 3).

Co-creation in education is not far from other related concepts that Bovill (2020) refers to, such as participatory design (DiSalvo et al., 2017), student engagement (Kuh, 2009), or partnership in learning and teaching (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). However, Bovill et al. (2016) favour the term co-creation, which they conceptualise as “occupying the space in between student engagement and partnership, to suggest a meaningful collaboration between students and staff, with students becoming more active participants in the learning process, constructing understanding and resources with academic staff” (197).

A wide variety of co-creation experiences are reported in the literature: Ansley and Hall (2019) present a series of co-creation workshops aiming to initiate a conversation about the attainment gap between Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic students and their white counterparts. Hughes et al. (2019) report on the Kingston University’s Student Curriculum Consultant Programme (SCCP), which contributes to the Inclusive Curriculum Framework (ICF). Cho et al. (2020) explore the value of student contributors by reporting on the generation of supplemental resources for the student’s learning needs by former students collaborating with faculty. Beevers (2021) presents his dual role in a project aiming to co-design the cognitive psychology modules of an undergraduate degree course. He became involved in the design of the co-creation process and in the actual co-creation workshops between students and staff. Cook-Sather et al. (2019) provide a wealth of examples in co-creation at different levels (courses, degrees, institution partnership programmes) and at different moments (before the course takes place, as the course is unfolding), with both students enrolled in a course or with students not enrolled, stressing that these forms of co-creation can contribute to a “curriculum that is more inclusive for equity-seeking students” (112).

As seen in the previous examples, co-creation in educational environments can take multiple forms. Bovill (2020) refers to the four main roles students may adopt: representative, consultant, co-researcher, and pedagogical co-designer. Bovill also makes a key distinction between (a) co-creation of the curriculum and (b) co-creation in the curriculum (Bovill and Woolmer, 2018). However, Lubicz-Nawrocka also identifies three main benefits: shared ownership and engagement in the learning community, student satisfaction and development, and staff satisfaction and development. In a later paper, Lubicz-Nawrocka (2019) identifies an additional benefit: creativity. In fact, the author understands co-creation of the curriculum not only as a product but also as a collaborative and creative process. To sum up, as indicated by Taylor and Bovill (2018), co-creating the curriculum “requires a significant shift in the ways we conceptualise and practice curriculum. In essence, it is about shifting the ways in which teachers and students relate to one another—moving away from pedagogic practices based in directorial teaching approaches which allocate subordinate and mainly passive roles for students towards ways of working based upon greater student agency and engagement” (3).

The second concept put forward by Bovill (co-creation in the curriculum), in which all students studying a course are involved, is not far from active learning methodologies which have been widely adopted in Europe after the Bologna process. Bovill (2020: 1026) states that there are still limited international examples of whole-class co-creation in learning and teaching in higher education, but stresses its benefits: improved academic performance, enhanced skills, satisfaction, increased confidence, engagement, enthusiasm and motivation, increased autonomy and ownership, stronger sense of community, and positive relationships, among other positive impacts.

Overall, regardless of the specific area in which the co-creation practice is developed (education, arts, etc.) and the specific form it takes, co-creation is often linked to positive aspects such as inclusion, empowerment, and ownership.

Co-creation in the higher education arts curriculum

In the arts curricula, articles such as Fister’s (2012) highlight the importance of having “public” dialogues with students to embrace their creativity and involvement with the learning process. In addition, literature shows how including entrepreneurial skills favours future employment (e.g., Essig and Guevara, 2016; Kuukoski, 2011; Pollard and Wilson, 2014; Toscher, 2019). Much has also been done in terms of transferable skills in the humanities and their impact on employment (e.g., Berk, 2019; Guerra-Báez, 2019; Vera, 2016). Another example is the implementation of social justice values through the arts (e.g., Brian, 2005; Gaylie, 2019; Dewhurst, 2014; Flemming, 2021).

However, when reviewing the literature of co-creation, there is not much to be found regarding how artistic co-creation is included in the curricula. For example, a recent study conducted by SV Flys et al. (2021) asked professors (55) and students (275) in a university centre for the arts which four skills were the most important for their art field. Within the list that was offered, co-creation was listed. The results showed that none of the professors selected co-creation and only 8% of the students selected it. One explanation could be that professors are relating co-creation to teamwork, which was highly valued by both students (57.45%) and professors (45.45%). However, it would not respond to the question of how co-creation can be taught in a way that students are aware of its value and impact. Educators in the arts have the role of training future creators and are shaping to a certain extent what the cultural industry will look like in the future. Thus, when teaching the arts, it becomes relevant to be able to relate the curriculum to the industry. In this sense, if the benefits of co-creation are those mentioned above and its impact is such in the industry and society as whole, it seems only obvious that it should be included into the program of study so that future artists can become agents of social change.

Methodology

To understand how arts students view co-creation and how they would assess it, a total of 90 arts graduate and undergraduate visual arts and performing arts students from different courses at the Madrid’s Arts School TAI were invited to reply to a short written interview. In order to provide some context, and to integrate knowledge about European projects as part of their learning process, they were given a 15-min introduction to the TRACTION project. The introduction was prepared by a project participant and focused on what a European project is and how TRACTION addresses artistic co-creation in three different trials in order to produce a social impact. This was an opportunity for students to become familiar with European projects and discuss co-creation activities. The presentation was followed by a Question and Answer session and at the end they were invited to contribute to the project by replying to the interview.

The written interview first included some questions on demographic data such as gender, postcode, age, ethnicity, disability, and occupation, in line with the TRACTION project demographic questionnaire. It then moved on to the four core questions:

• One of TRACTION’s aims is to co-create an opera with artists and participants. Do you have experience in co-creation (in any area, not necessarily opera)? If so, please explain your experience.

• What is co-creation for you?

• What indicators could help you decide that a co-creation process is working well? For instance, an indicator could be “participation in the co-creation sessions” or “active participation of the participants”.

• What indicators could help you decide that the result of a co-creation process has been a success? For instance, an indicator could be “audience attendance”.

The four questions were the same ones that were answered by 19 TRACTION stakeholders (Matamala and Soler-Vilageliu, 2022), to allow for a comparison, but the phrasing was adapted to the students. (These stakeholders are hereinafter often referred to as professionals in the comparative analysis.) Despite the risk of leading participants to the answers provided as examples, after some internal discussion with experts in community art involved in the project it was decided to include such explanations because it was considered that the term “indicator” may not be clear.

A total of 90 students were invited to reply to the questionnaire and 49 replies were gathered (38.7% from visual art students and 61.22% from performing arts students, out of which 19 were undergraduate and 11 were graduate students). 77.6% were male, 18.4% were female, and the rest identified as another gender. They were all based in Spain. Mean age was 22, ranging from 19 to 44. In terms of ethnicity, a wide range of replies were received but most participants termed themselves as Caucasian, white or European, whereas a few referred to themselves as Latino or “mestizo.” None of them reported being a person with a disability and one preferred not to reply. All of them were students, but when asked about their occupation, 14 (28.6%) referred to artistic professions, 3 (6.1%) considered themselves actors and students, and 32 (65.3%) replied that they were students. Additionally, 18 (36.7%) reported not having experience in co-creation, whereas 22 (44.9%) considered that they did and 9 (18.4%) referred to co-creation activities done as students. Demographic information is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic data.

Number of responses	49
Studies	Graduate and undergraduate performing arts students: 30 (61.22%)
Studies	Visual arts students: 19 (38.78%)
Level of studies	Graduates from an MA in performing arts: 11
Level of studies	Undergraduates: 38 (19 from visual arts and 19 from performing arts)
Gender	Another gender: 4 (8.2%)
	Female: 9 (18.4%)
	Male: 38 (77.5%)
Mean age	22 (range: 19-44)
Ethnicity	Caucasian/white/European: 34 (69,3%)
	Latino: 4 (8%)
	Mestizo: 4 (8%)
	*It is important to notice that not all participants wanted to identify themselves in this category or brought up different ideas of how they should be identified such as “double nationality,” “European and agnostic,” “emotional and sensitive,” or “like everyone else”
Person with a disability	No: 48 (98%)
	No reply: 1 (2%)
	Yes: 0
Occupation	Actors and students: 3 (6.1%)
	Artistic professions: 14 (28.6%)
	Students: 32 (65.3%)
Experience in co-creation	No: 18 (36.7%)
	Yes: 22 (44.9%)
	Yes, as students: 9 (18.4%)

The written interviews were analysed thematically using the online collaborative tool Taguette. The indicators to assess co-creation that had emerged from the TRACTION interviews with stakeholders (see Table 2) were used as a starting point.

Table 2.

Map of indicators classified (*) according to categories. Source: Matamala et al. (2021).

These indicators are defined by Matamala and Soler-Vilageliu (2022) as follows:

a) Indicators related to the co-creation process

There are indicators related to the non-professional participants:

• Profile (output): different profiles contribute to the co-creation process.

• Participation (output): non-professionals attend the co-creation process and numbers are retained.

• Engagement (outcome): non-professionals actively participate, are motivated, and show interest and enthusiasm.

• Balanced contributions (outcome): the project is balanced between the different participant profiles.

• Mutual understanding (outcome): participants find shared elements among themselves, there is good communication and a connection between professionals and non-professionals.

• Relationships (outcome): bonds of trust and friendship are being developed.

• Satisfaction (outcome): non-professionals are satisfied with the co-creation process.

And there is one indicator related to the project:

• Evolution (outcome): the project takes its own journey and is able to adapt.

b) Indicators related to the co-creation artistic product

The list of indicators is as follows:

• Artistic product (output): the fact that an artistic product has been created at the end.

• Artistic quality (outcome): questions of quality should be considered separately from the fact that an artistic product is achieved.

• Media impact (outcome): positive media reviews and social media presence.

• Audience attendance (output): people attending the performances.

• Audience profile (output): diversity of the audience.

• Audience response (outcome):

o Feeling represented: the audience feel represented in the artistic output.

o Personal change: the artistic product produces a change in the audience (reaction and change, audience thinking about new topics, change of belief, etc.)

o Satisfaction: the audience express appreciation and give feedback.

• Non-professionals’ response (outcome):

o Feeling represented: participants feel represented in the artistic output.

o Satisfaction: participants feeling satisfied.

c) Indicators related to both the co-creation process and the artistic product.

These indicators have an impact on the community, on the non-professionals, on the professionals, and on the institution.

• Community impact (outcome): the community talks about the project and incorporates it. The impact adds value to the project.

• Personal change (outcome):

o For non-professionals: they increase their self-esteem, their view of the world changes, and art becomes a part of their life. This includes empowerment: non-professionals feel they are owners of the process and show more confidence in revealing their own ideas.

o For professionals: artists change their perspective on audiences and society (attitudes).

o For both, this includes relationships: friendship, social networking among participants.

• Institutional change: The institution has changed in terms of attitudes, programme, and practice (values, governance, working methods, etc.).

It was also considered that informal learning would happen during the co-creation process, enhancing the participants’ skills.

In the analysis of the written interviews, two researchers worked independently in an iterative process and then worked in collaborative sessions until a consensus was reached.

During the independent work, researchers carefully read and re-read the transcriptions and tagged them using the qualitative analysis software Taguette. The tagging was based on the map of indicators and focused on: (a) how to define co-creation and (b) how to assess co-creation. When new themes that did not fit the map of indicators emerged, the researcher made a proposal to be discussed in the collaborative sessions. For instance, various students referred to financial aspects that were not present in the map of indicators. Both deductive and inductive approaches were followed, with the map of indicators as the main reference point for analysis, but also allowing for data-driven coding where relevant.

During a collaborative session, the researchers compared their independent tagging. Where divergences were found, a discussion entailed until a consensus was reached, based on a clear definition of the meaning and scope of each indicator. Similarly, when a proposal for a new indicator emerged, this was thoroughly discussed paying attention to theindicators in the initial map. The result of this analysis was then transferred into a unique Excel file and was further revised collaboratively in another working session to guarantee its consistency. The final result was: (a) an Excel file with the definitions thematically coded and (b) an Excel file with the indicators thematically coded. These results were contrasted with those of the 19 professionals interviewed (Matamala and Soler-Vilageliu, 2022), which were available in the same format. Results are presented in the next section.

The study followed a research protocol approved by the UAB University’s Ethical Committee as part of the TRACTION project.

Results: students’ understanding of co-creation

The first step was to analyse what students understood by co-creation and if they had had experience with it (Table 3).

Table 3.

Participant profile.

Number of students	Previous experience (Yes/No)	Settings of previous experience	Artistic discipline
19	No		14 performing arts
19	No		5 visual arts
10	Yes	Educational setting	4 performing arts
10	Yes	Educational setting	6 visual arts
17	Yes	Artistic projects	10 performing arts
17	Yes	Artistic projects	7 visual arts
3	Yes	Social/Voluntary work	3 performing arts

37% of the students replied that they were not experienced in co-creation. Those who had previous experiences in co-creation referred to educational co-creation processes (10 participants), artistic projects (17 participants) and voluntary work in social contexts (3 participants). Out of this, students who had less experience in co-creation were undergraduate students in performing arts (11 participants vs five from visual arts and three from the MA program). Both undergraduates in visual arts (7 participants) and graduate students in performing arts (7 participants) mentioned having artistic experience in co-creation (as well as three undergraduate students in performing arts). In terms of educational co-creation processes, the students that highlighted this experience the most were the undergraduates in visual arts (6 participants vs three participants in undergraduate performing arts and one participant in the MA). Given these results, one wonders if it is more common to have co-creation experiences in the visual arts field, thus the number of artistic possibilities and experiences among the students, and also if it is more embedded in the visual arts curriculum than it is in the performing arts.

In terms of definitions, most of their definitions dealt with similar concepts as the ones from professionals in the TRACTION project. To study the given co-creation definitions provided by students, we grouped the responses under the following main themes, which were based on the ones designed by the project after an inductive thematic analysis process: participant profile, collaboration, authorship and leadership, conception and duration, ethical and social aspects, and terminology.

Participant profile

Of the respondents, 34 students (69%) reflect in their definitions the idea of having more than one participant. Participants are usually defined in very general terms such as “two or more people,” “different people,” “more than one participant,” with sometimes more specific descriptions: “people from different artistic disciplines and [with] audiences,” “people with different skills,” “different areas (professionals, companies, individuals, etc.).” Some respondents explicitly mention audience involvement as a key element. It is not uncommon among students to relate co-creation with creation processes with “other artists” in which “different artistic disciplines are merged,” whereas some explicitly mention a “community creation work” versus professionals where only four of them mentioned participants’ differences. Moreover, 16 of those students specifically stated having participants from different fields or with different knowledge. Also, in this case both visual arts and performing arts students (with and without experience) reflect on the idea of having diversity among the co-creation groups.

Collaboration

Almost 94% of the students mentioned the concept of collaboration in their definition. All undergraduate students in performing arts did so, as well as most (17 out of 18) of the students who did not have experience with co-creation. Working “in a team” “together,” with “more than one person,” “different artists together,” or “collectively” are recurrent definitions. In comparing these results with those from professionals (Matamala and Soler-Vilageliu, 2022), we find common perceptions within the importance of sharing, working together, etc. Moreover, 100% of the professionals include the concept of collaboration within their definitions. However, it is to be noted that professionals’ definitions highlight the importance of equal collaboration, including concepts such as debates, collaborative process, active participation, shared dialogue, negotiation, and common paths. The authors wonder if this is a result of having more experience than students in co-creation processes and the value of respecting other stakeholders’ perspectives for the outcome of the project.

Authorship and leadership

Amongst the professionals, 5 (out of 16) acknowledged the idea of authorship and ownership. However, only 1 visual arts student, with previous experience, mentioned that all members of the project would have authorship. In comparison with the recognition of leadership, 4 professionals (2 of which mentioned the previous concept) remark on the concept of equal status or all members being at the same level, while two of them point out that there is someone who takes responsibility, or who will predetermine the experience. With students, 7 (2 from visual arts and five from performing arts) highlighted the concepts of leadership among participants, while 4 explained the importance of equal participation, and three mentioned the idea of having a leader (all from performing arts). Both the students and professionals that mentioned the leadership position come from the performing arts field, which leads to the question whether visual arts have more opportunities of horizontal processes compared to the performing arts.

Conception and duration

Not one student mentioned duration, though some professionals (4 out of 16) included conception and duration in their definitions. For professionals co-creation develops over time and is usually viewed as a long process or even as a “cyclic process”. However, this could be related to the idea of obtaining a “final product” in order to pass a class or degree. In other words, students could be more goal oriented due to the way projects are embedded in the classroom curriculum. In terms of conception, only 1 visual arts student with previous experience in co-creation mentioned how the co-creation project came to be as a realisation of an idea the student had.

Goals and value

Approximately 88% of the students mentioned the idea of having or achieving a goal versus only 5 professionals. The ultimate goal is to create a “product,” a “performance,” a “project,” which is termed as “creative,” “fascinating,” “innovative” or “universal,” and very often as “shared.” However, when giving value to the outcome most of the students who mentioned goals are from the performing arts field. In addition, and contrary to the definitions provided by professionals, none of the students refer to the institutional change as a co-creation product, but they refer to the learning process it entails, which may be linked to the fact that many of them consider educational projects as co-creation projects.

Ethical and social aspects

Ethical and social aspects are not stressed by students, with only a few relating co-creation with community work. Some students (all in performing arts) gain experience in co-creation through voluntary work with associations working with children in hospitals, persons with disabilities, and nursing homes. If we compare this to the professionals, we can see that 6 of them mentioned the importance of the projects being connected to the community/territory, to other social projects, and generating change to a demand. Some of them include the relevance of respect and ethics while engaging in the process in their definitions, as well as the potential impact on the institutions. 1 professional who has participated in community actions through an arts venue explicitly mentions the institutional change: through co-creation “the role of the institution is redefined and adjusted” and the project has an impact on the cultural institution itself. The lack of ethical and social changes in students’ definitions may be related to the poor position of artistic co-creation in the arts curriculum but also to the youth and inexperience of students compared to professionals.

Terminology

In terms of terminology, and including meta concepts in the definition, while 10 professionals reflect in their responses on the usage of the term “co-creation,” only 5 students (4 from visual arts) do so. 1 student stated that co-creation is a “synonym of collaboration although it is not exactly the same,” and another one considers that s/he would use words such as “collaborate, contribute, listen, learn, communicate, join and work” as part of the definition of co-creation. However, this could be related to the students’ lack of experience. The terminology is not stable and there is not a “one-size-fits-all approach,” as mentioned by Walmsley (2013), who identifies key areas that are recurrent across definitions: “collaboration, interaction, invention, participation, experience, value and exchange” (109-110).

Getting a sense of what students understand by co-creation helps us acknowledge the gaps between professionals and students and those places where we, as educators, should focus on. However, one question that arises is how we assess co-creation processes inside and outside the classroom.

We asked students what they would consider important to assess co-creation activities.

Most of the students referred to artistic output (100 responses vs 75 responses in the process). Within the output, students highlighted primarily the audience attendance (20 responses), media impact (16 responses), participant satisfaction (16 responses), the audience response (15 responses), and the artistic achievement (10 responses). While professionals also valued audience responses and attendance the most, professionals gave more relevance to relationships (7 responses) and new projects (4 responses), while students rarely or never mentioned them (0 for relationships and four for new projects). This could be due to the fact that most students are currently thinking about educational projects as these types of processes (with no future beyond obtaining a grade) while professionals see them as future opportunities. Students gave greater importance to media impact (16 responses while professionals only mentioned it 3 times) and they also included financial aspects as an outcome (with six mentions vs one mention for professionals). Of those responses 5 came from performing arts and only one from visual arts students.

In terms of process, students primarily highlighted engagement (30 responses) and mutual understanding (15 responses). The latter can be related to balanced contribution, which also gained nine responses from students. Professionals also highlighted engagement and mutual understanding. Participation was also high in both types of respondents. Lastly, personal change from respondents was classified as an evaluation indicator for both output and process. While professionals gave it a high value (11 responses) this category only received 6 responses from students.

A proposal: How to integrate co-creation in the arts curriculum

As stated in the literature review, although there is research in co-creation processes, none seem to concentrate on the teaching process of co-creation itself and how to implement it inside and outside the classroom in artistic projects. In order to do so, and taking into consideration the outcomes obtained from this research, this section proposes ways to include co-creation into arts curricula.

When analysing the students’ interviews, one can identify a series of themes that are related with skills, and more so with transferable skills such as teamwork, active listening, empathy, and leadership. In addition, the idea of having an outcome which can have a specific duration, different participants, and an impact on the community (e.g., institutional change) emerges.

A first approach could be to integrate these transferable skills in the curricula and ensure students understand the values of teamwork (e.g., mutual understanding and balanced contribution), and how they can develop empathy, active listening, and/or rotate between roles (assuming leadership positions)—skills that are fundamental for any co-creation project. Activities that could enhance these elements go from “Six Hats” from Edward de Bono, developing empathy maps (such as the one created by David Gray), the “Wallet Project” from the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University (2022), many of the games introduced by Michael Michalko in his book Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative-Thinking Techniques (2006), or those from the website Thinking Collaborative (2022). However, in order for any of these to be successful, the professor must give them value, explain the outcomes of developing those skills and how they are key for co-creation processes. An additional suggestion would be to develop a co-creation process of the curriculum to define how these skills could be integrated. In other words, we could go back to the students with the results of this research and start a discussion with them on how this could impact the curriculum in the arts school.

The second approach would be to create practical projects that are undertaken by small groups and that have a bigger impact than just being graded by the professor. This would increase the number of experiences that students have with co-creation processes during their education, especially in undergraduate degrees such as performing arts (as seen in our results). As Martínez (2011) stated, it is recommended that out of the curricular weight of the academic content, 30% should be for the theoretical part (conceptual content) and 70% for the practical part (procedural content). Kolb and Kolb (2009) agree that individuals need to engage in explorative behaviour. In this sense, Guerra Báez (2019) talks about experiential learning and how “learning by walking or doing” can lead students to immerse themselves in a situation where they learn from experience by discovering the challenges and finding their own solutions, an experience in simulated or real contexts. Moreover, if as shown, professionals highlighted the ethical and social aspects of co-creation and included these concepts in the theoretical classes, a way to proceed could be through experiential learning.

Professors could encourage students to collaborate with other students (from different fields or courses) to develop a performance/concert, exhibit, etc. This could be part of their class assignments, helping them understand and apply what working with different students from different disciplines looks like, as well as enhancing perceptions such as collaboration, which were seen in the results. For instance, one of the authors has encouraged these types of activities in several of her arts administration courses (e.g., organising concerts where music students and arts administrators collaborated) Art administration students were able to put theoretical concepts into practice through these activities. Furthermore, since these projects are graded, professors could work collaboratively with students on how they should be evaluated. On the one hand, this would enhance students’ partnership with professors highlighted in articles such as the one from Kiester and Holowko (2020). On the other hand, it would provide an excellent chance to review the evaluation processes of these projects with them beyond the artistic output (audience responses), such as relationships and the generation of new projects. These are concepts that, as our results showed, were brought up by professionals but not by students.

A third proposal relates to ASL (Academic Service Learning) projects as an adequate environment to develop artistic co-creation processes, with an ethical and social component. Duncan and Kopperud (2008) defined service-learning (SL) as “a learning method that upholds a commitment to appreciating the assets of and serving the needs of a community partner while enhancing student learning and academic rigor through the practice of intentional reflective thinking and responsible civic action” (4). Moreover, there is an extant amount of research on SL where benefits for students are highlighted, such as professional responsibility, personal development and agency, civic responsibility, social justice, and a sense of belonging, to name a few. An example of this partnership or collaboration between students and the “outside world” could be the one described by Prasad (2021).

ASL is a good model to follow with the goal of implementing co-creation in the curricula. Menéndez-Varela and Grigori-Giralt (2017) mentioned the importance of having projects that fulfil three premises: (a) projects must promote the construction of professionals both in its technical and deontological facet, (b) the student must play an indispensable role during the project’s conception and implementations, and (c) community members and stakeholders can’t be just recipients, they must intervene during the process and evaluation of the project (therefore, learning does not affect only students) (419; authors’ translation). Traver-Martí et al. (2019) also pointed out the need to have “full democratic participation, the visibility of the students’ voice and the interconnection of knowledge” (197). Toscher (2020) shared the importance of creating an effective learning environment where educators need to understand the influence of their teaching practice in students’ ability to explore and to accomplish action (19), as well as the need to consider each student’s sensitivity to uncertainty and tolerance for ambiguity (41).

Activities that could enhance the ASL work in the classroom are those where students collaborate with community members in order to achieve the same goal. For example, organising an exhibit about an issue that is important for the community where both students and community members participate. These types of activities would open new learning opportunities to both students and professors. Besides the evaluating component (seen in the second approach), collaborating with other stakeholders beyond the university community could help unpack leadership concepts and power dynamics, among others. In addition, for these types of projects and following previous literature, professors could implement processes as the one described by Smith et al. (2021), where their co-creation/collaboration study followed five stages: problematising (understanding the purpose of the collaboration and its outcomes), listening (identifying the different perspectives and needs from all stakeholders), creating (generating proposals/solutions and considering quality standards and assessment criteria), implementing (selecting a specific event/session where implementation can take place), and evaluating (assessing the proposal and evaluating the partnerships amongst stakeholders and the outcome achieved). Thus, by incorporating these stages, the project provides not only the experience of the co-creation process and outcomes but also the opportunity of acknowledging the benefits and challenges of collaboration with others (communication, active listening, assessment criteria, etc,).

A final aspect to consider involves the audience and its reactions to the creative proposal, as well as the necessary reflection by students on future projects. Any exercises or projects should consider the audience’s engagement and have a public view/experience. As Reason (2010) claims, “any work of art is only completed through the engagement and within the experience of an audience” (15). Students should also reflect on the process so that they can consider future projects. Therefore, the professor’s role is not only to teach but to make sure students recognise what they have learned and what they discovered that they didn’t know. Thus, students need to reflect on the process and outcome of the practice they have developed. Ramón (2013) states that it is through this reflection that we generate knowledge that can inform potential short and long-term actions.

Conclusions

Kester (2011) proposed that collaborative practices offer aesthetic experiences that have the capability to “transform our perceptions of difference and to open space for forms of knowledge that challenge cognitive, social or political conventions” (11). Artistic co-creation can be viewed as one of these practices that can transform participants, both professionals and non-professionals.

This article has explored how arts students understand co-creation and how they would assess it. The work performed in this study has also contributed to defining a list of indicators to assess artistic co-creation involving both professionals and non-professionals within the framework of the TRACTION project. The results of the 49 written interviews also show that the concept of co-creation is still a fuzzy one, a situation that replicates results from professional interviewees. The comparison of the students’ interviews with the professional ones also provides food for thought for lecturers, as it highlights areas in which further training may be needed. For instance, students hardly reflect on the ethical and social aspects of co-creation and they do not refer to practical aspects such as how co-creation processes are conceived and developed over time. On the contrary, they do refer to financial aspects, an issue that is not considered a priority by professionals in the context of community work.

The article presents some limitations which open the door to future research: expanding research to wider samples across different institutions would provide new insights into the concept of co-creation in higher education. Our literature review also proves that co-creation in the higher education arts curriculum is an underexplored topic with many possibilities. Future research could explore activities that are currently taking place in the classroom that might not be defined by the professors as co-creation but could be considered as such. Another approach would be to discuss with the students the results of our analysis and develop a co-creation process of how the actual concept and practice of artistic co-creation could be integrated in the curriculum.

The concept of co-creation is still not fixed and it evolves continuously, adapting to different fields. Although a single agreed-upon definition of co-creation may not be required, we believe that a shared understanding of what co-creation is when starting a specific co-creation process is of the essence to manage expectations among the different participants involved, especially as many of them may not be familiar with co-creation and how it differs from traditional professional processes. In this regard, the article has suggested ways in which artistic co-creation could be integrated in the arts curriculum, mainly within the context of transferable skills development, experiential learning, and ASL. Through the application of this research to arts education, the students, professionals, and communities can benefit with more enriched, engaged experiences with art.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research has received funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant number 870610. SV Flys is a member of GIAT, a research group funded by the University Center for the Arts TAI. Matamala is a member of TransMedia Catalonia, a research group funded by the Catalan government under the SGR funding scheme (2021SGR00077).

ORCID iD

Elena SV Flys

Author biographies

Elena SV-Flys, BA in Performing Arts (RESAD) and Public Relations (UCM), PhD in Communication, Education, and Society (UAH), is an Assistant Professor at TAI University Center for the Arts in Madrid. She currently leads the research department as well as GIAT’s research group. SV-Flys has participated in severall funded projects on accessibility and artistic creation (MUSISENS, Towards an Accessible Theatre for All, Brickley Research Award, Women and Philanthropy, among others). Currently she is involved in the European Project TRANSMIGRARTS. Her two latest publications are “Artistic co-creation: how art students view co-creation and how it could be integrated in the arts curriculum” in press for Arts and Humanities in Higher Education and “Improving Accessibility and Inclusion in Performing Arts For People with Disabilities: Moving Beyond a "Checking- the boxes'' Approach” in the The Oxford Handbook of Arts and Cultural Management.

Anna Matamala, BA in Translation (UAB) and PhD in Applied Linguistics (UPF, Barcelona), is a Full Professor at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Leader of Transmedia Catalonia research group, Anna Matamala has participated (DTV4ALL, ADLAB, HBB4ALL, ACT, ADLAB PRO, IMAC, TRACTION) and led (AVT-LP, ALST, VIW, NEA, EASIT, RAD) funded projects on audiovisual translation and media accessibility. She is currently involved in the European project Mediaverse and is leading the network AccessCat. She has taken an active role in the organisation of scientific events such as the Media for All conference or the Advanced Research Audio Description Seminar ARSAD and has published extensively in international journals such as Meta, The Translator, Perspectives, Babel, Translation Studies, among others. She is the author of a book on interjections and lexicography (IEC, 2005), co-author (with Eliana Franco and Pilar Orero) of a book on voice-over (Peter Lang, 2010), author of a book on audiovisual accessibility and translation (Eumo, 2019), and co-editor of various volumes on audiovisual translation and media accessibility. Joan Coromines Prize in 2005, APOSTA Award to Young Researchers in 2011, Dr. Margaret R. Pfanstiehl Memorial Achievement Award in Audio Description Research and Development 2021. Her research interests are audiovisual translation and accessibility. She is also actively involved in standardisation work.

References

Ansley

Hall

(2019) Freedom to achieve: addressing the attainment gap through student and staff co-creation. Compass. Journal of Learning and Teaching 12(1): 2019. Available at: https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/compass/article/view/946

Baker

Loughren

Ellis

, et al. (2017) Artlift Wiltshire Move on Groups. UK, March: Final Report. University of Gloucestershire.

Beevers

(2021) Seeing both sides: a student’s experience of dual roles in a university co-creation project. International Journal for Students as Partners 5(2): 141–146.

Bendapudi

Leone

(2003) Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing 67(1): 14–28.

Berk

(2019) Becoming more than my title: from K-12 art teacher to director of a university-wide entrepreneurship initiative. Art Education 72: 36–40.

Bovill

(2020) Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education 79: 1023–1037.

Bovill

Woolmer

(2018) How conceptualisations of curriculum in higher education influence student-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum. Higher Education 78: 407–422.

Bovill

Cook-Sather

Felten

, et al. (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.

Brian

(2005) Devising community. Theatre Topics 15(1): 1–13.

10.

Brown

Novak-Leonard

Gilbride

(2011) Getting in on the Act. US, October: The James Irvine Foundation.

11.

Cho

Werker

Yaxi Liu

, et al. (2020) A three-party case study: exploring the value of student work in the co-creation in teaching and learning. Teaching and Learning Inquiry 8(2): 200–220.

12.

Cook-Sather

Bovill

Felten

(2014) Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

13.

Cook-Sather

Matthews

Bell

(2019) Transforming curriculum development through co-creation with students. In: Quinn

(ed), Remaining Curriculum: Spaces for Disruption. Cape Town, South Africa: African Sun Media, pp. 107–126.

14.

Cova

Ezan

Fuschillo

(2013) Zoom sur l’autoproduction du consommateur. Revue Française de Gestion 34(234): 115–133.

15.

Design School Stanford (2022) Wallet Project. Available at: https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources (accessed 8 May 2022).

16.

Dewhurst

(2014) Social Justice Art: A Framework for Activist Art Pedagogy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

17.

DiSalvo

Yip

Bonsignore

, et al. (eds), (2017) Participatory Design for Learning: Perspectives from Practice and Research. Abindong: Routledge.

18.

Dollinger

Lodge

Coates

(2018) Co-creation in higher education: towards a conceptual model. Journal Of Marketing for Higher Education 28(1): 210–231.

19.

Duncan

Kopperud

(2008) Service-learning Companion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

20.

Essig

Guevara

(2016) A landscape of arts entrepreneurship in US higher education. In: Pave Program in Arts Entrepreneurship. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Available at: https://herbergerinstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/a_landscape_of_arts_entrepreneurship_in_us_higher_education_0.pdf (accessed 10 December 2021).

21.

Fister

(2012) Regarding student collaboration in art and design. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education 5: 1–5.

22.

Flemming

(2021) Advocating for social justice through script writing. English Journal 110(3): 33–39.

23.

Galvagno

Dalli

(2014) Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality: International Journal 24(6): 643–683.

24.

Gaylie

(2019) Raising awareness of social justice and war through film and poetry. Radical Teacher 113: 64–65.

25.

Grönroos

Voima

(2013) Making Sense of Value and Value Co-Creation in Service Logic. Helsinki, Finland: Hanken School of Economics Working Papers, vol. 559.

26.

Guerra-Báez

(2019) Una revisión panorámica al entrenamiento de las habilidades blandas en estudiantes universitarios. Psicología Escolar y Educacional 23. DOI: 10.1590/2175-35392019016464.

27.

Hacking

Secker

Spandler

, et al. (2008) Evaluating the impact of participatory art projects for people with mental health needs. Health and Social Care in the Community 16(6): 638–648.

28.

Hughes

Michener

Mohamed

, et al. (2019) Curriculum co-creation as a transformative strategy to address differential student outcomes: the example of Kinston University’s Student Curriculum Consultant Programme. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching 12(1): 955. Available at: https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/44919/

29.

Kester

(2011) The One and the Many: Contemporary Collaborative Art in a Global Context. Durham: Duke University Press.

30.

Kiester

Holowko

(2020) Redefining the roles of master and apprentice: Crossing the threshold through the co-creation of a first-year seminar. International Journal for Students as Partners 4: 66–81. DOI: 10.15173/ijsap.v4i1.3826.

31.

Kolb

(2009) Experiential learning theory: a dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In: Armstrong

Fukami

(eds), The Sage Handbook of Management Learning, Education and Development. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage, pp. 42–68.

32.

Kuh

(2009) High impact activities: what they are, why they work, who benefits. In: Rust

(ed), Improving Student Learning through Curriculum. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, pp. 20–39.

33.

Kumari

Kwon

Lee

, et al. (2019) Co-creation for social innovation in the ecosystem context: the role of higher educational institutions. Sustainability, MDPI 12(1): 1–21.

34.

Kuuskoski

(2011) The complete pianist: leveraging entrepreneurial mentorship to foster a renewed vision of piano pedagogy. In: Beckman

(ed), Disciplining the Arts: Teaching Entrepreneurship in Context. Plymouth, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Education, pp. 95–116.

35.

Lubicz-Nawrocka

(2019) Creativity and collaboration: an exploration of empathy, inclusion and resilience in co-creation of the curriculum. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal 2(3): 199–213.

36.

Martínez

(2011) La Empleabilidad: Una Competencia Personal y Una Responsabilidad Social. Contribuciones a Las Ciencias Sociales. Available at: https://www.eumed.net/rev/cccss/14/jamg/(2).html

37.

Matamala

Soler-Vilageliu

(2022) Defining and assessing artistic co-creation: the TRACTION proposal. Arte, Individuo y Sociedad 34(4): 851–867.

38.

Matamala

Matarasso

Soler-Vilageliu

, et al. (2021) TRACTION Deliverable 4.3. Co-Creation and User Training Evaluation. Project Report.

39.

Matarasso

(1997) User or ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Nr Stroud: Comedia Publishing Group.

40.

Matarasso

(2019) A Restless Art. How Participation Won and Why it Matters. Lisbon, Portugal: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

41.

Matarasso

(2021) TRACTION deliverable 3.2. Opera co-creation (preliminary report). Project Report.

42.

Menéndez-Varela

Grigori-Giralt

(2017) La construcción de la identidad profesional de estudiantes universitarios de arte a través de proyectos de aprendizaje-servicio. Arte, Individuo y Sociedad 29(3): 417–443.

43.

Michalko

(2006) Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative Thinking Techniques. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.

44.

Pollard

Wilson

(2014) The entrepreneurial mindset in creative and performing arts higher education in Australia. Artivate 3(1): 3–22.

45.

Prahalad

Ramaswamy

(2000) Co-Opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review.

46.

Prasad

(2021) Partnership for empowerment and discovering one’s purpose. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education 34(1): 1–4.

47.

Ramaswamy

Gouillart

(2010) The Power of Co-creation. New York: Free Press.

48.

Ramón

(2013) Las teorias de Schön y Dewey: hacia un modelo de reflexión en la práctica docente. Cinzontle 11: 27–32.

49.

Ranjan

Read

(2016) Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44(3): 290–315.

50.

Rashid

Waseem

Akbar

, et al. (2018) Value co-creation and social media. A systematic literature review using citation and thematic analysis. European Business Revies 31(5): 761–784.

51.

Reason

(2010) Asking the audience: audience research and experience of theatre. About Performance 10: 15–34.

52.

Rill

Hämäläinen

(2018) The Art of Co-creation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

53.

Smith

Axson

Akhyani

, et al. (2021) The partnership co-creation process: conditions for Success? International Journal for Students as Partners 5(2): 48–66.

54.

Sv Flys

Torres

Fernández-Costa

(2021) Transferable skills and their value in artistic teaching: Reflections of professors and college students. In: Guia

Musico

(ed), Conference Proceedings CIVAE 2021: 3rd Interdisciplinary and Virtual Conference on Arts in Education. MusicoGuia, pp. 308–312.

55.

Taylor

Bovill

(2018) Towards an ecology of participation: process philosophy and co-creation in higher education curricula. European Educational Research Journal 17(1): 112–128.

56.

Thinking Collaborative (2022) Resources and more. Available at: https://www.thinkingcollaborative.com/ (accessed 8 May 2022).

57.

Toscher

(2019) Entrepreneurial learning in arts entrepreneurship education: a conceptual framework. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 8(1): 3–22.

58.

Toscher

(2020) Blank canvas: explorative behavior and personal agency in arts entrepreneurship education. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 9(2): 20–45.

59.

Traver-Martí

Moliner García

Sales Ciges

(2019) Negotiating curriculum: learning-Service in included school. Alteridad 14(2): 195–206.

60.

Vargo

Lusch

(2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1): 1–10.

61.

Vera

(2016) Infusión de habilidades blandas en el currículo de la educación superior: clave para el desarrollo de capital humano Avanzado. Akademeia 7(1): 53–73.

62.

Walmsley

(2013) Co-creating theatre: authentic engagement or inter-legitimation? Cultural Trends 22(2): 108–112.