ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 OPEN The REFUGE-ED Dialogic Co-Creation Process: working with and for REFUGE-ED children and minors Teresa Sordé-Martí1 ✉, Adnan Abdul Ghani2, Bilal Almobarak3, Tiziana Chiappelli 4, Ainhoa Flecha1, Mina Hristova5, Anna Krasteva6, Fredrika Kjellberg2, Katie McQuillan7, Elizabeth Nixon6, Misbah Qasemi3, Olga Serradell1, Emilia Aiello 1, Lorraine Swords7, Hend Talal Abdulrahman2 & Group Authorship, representing 1234567890():,; REFUGE-ED Consortium A growing body of literature suggests that involving end-users in intervention research, including design, implementation, and evaluation, is associated with numerous positive outcomes. These outcomes include improved intervention efficacy, sustainability, and psy- chological growth among collaborators. The value of this approach and the recommendation for researchers to embrace co-creation in implementation and policies have also been recognised within the EU Framework of Research Innovation. Furthermore, it has been suggested that this approach may be particularly relevant for working with individuals from marginalised groups, whose voices are often absent from research and policy discussions. However, there has been limited attention given to how co-creation unfolds in practice. In this article, we provide a review of the methodological framework implemented by the H2020 REFUGE-ED (2021–2023), which was conducted in collaboration with migrant, refugee, and asylum-seeking communities. The project implemented the 'REFUGE-ED Dialogic Co- Creation Process (RDCP)' in 46 educational settings across six European countries. Con- sidering the need for evidence-based approaches in education and mental health and psy- chosocial support practices, we suggest that the RDCP has the potential for sustainability and replicability in diverse contexts. 1 Department of Sociology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Edifici B Campus UAB - Carrer de Fortuna s/n - Facultat de Polítiques i Sociologia, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. 2 Save the Children, Lilla Bommen 4b, 411 04 Gothenburg, Sweden. 3 Support Group Network, Kungsladugårdsvägen 5, 264 54 Vänersborg, Sweden. 4 Sciences of Education and Psychology Department, Università degli Studi di Firenze (University of Florence), Via Laura, 48, 50121 Firenze, FI, Italy. 5 Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Studies with Ethnographic Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia, 6A Moskovska str., Sofia, Bulgaria. 6 Department of Political Sciences, New Bulgarian University, Montevideo Str. Sofia, 1618 Sofia City, Bulgaria. 7 Trinity Centre for Global Health, Trinity College Dublin, the University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. ✉email: Teresa.sorde@uab.cat HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 1 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 T Introduction o implement effective and evidence-based Mental Health have generated improvements in society in relation to the and Psychosocial Support (hereafter, MHPSS) continuous objectives that enjoy a broad consensus (e.g., UN Sustainable research and evaluation is required. This is of particular Development Goals) and/or that have been set by democratically importance among groups who may have been traditionally elected people (Flecha 2014). excluded from research and broader society, and whose needs Resulting from the above-mentioned literature review, the may differ from the researched population such as, asylum see- identified effective approaches in MHPSS were the following: kers, and refugees (hereinafter, MAR). Also, there has been a long creating a safe space; providing psychoeducation; facilitating critique and claim from citizens that research funded with public creative expression. Regarding the practices in the field of edu- funds should tackle societal problems, and that it should be done cation for which there is evidence of social impact, these are the counting on end-users’ voices (Ramon Flecha et al. 2015; Soler- “Successful Educational Practices” (SEAs), namely: literary gath- Gallart 2017). However, there is still a gap between the academic erings; interactive groups; educative participation of the com- literature and practice (Cantekin 2019; Coburn 2003). This study munity; family education; dialogic pedagogical education for looks to bridge the gap between what the academic and MHPSS teachers; and dialogic conflict prevention and resolution model. literature on MAR communities and how this is translated into Eventually, these are the actions and approaches which are being practice. presented to the 46 implementing pilot sites under REFUGE-ED, Reducing this gap is a priority of many scientists working from distributed across six European countries: 13 of them are in a community-based perspective and concerned with making sure Spain, 14 in Italy, 10 in Greece, 5 in Bulgaria, 3 in Sweden and 1 that their research outputs serve the public, as well as public and in Ireland. Pilots are named as those centres that host refugee or governmental institutions (Wood & Kallestrup 2021; Rustage migrant children and which are collaborating with the project et al. 2021; Afifi et al. 2011). In this regard, the EU has already consortium. These pilots are of three different types: reception stated the need to advance towards a co-creation of knowledge and identification centres; inclusive school environments and and co-creation in the implementation of policies (European social and learning environment; and institutionalised residential Commission, Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021- care targeted to unaccompanied minors and separated children. 2027 2020). Although this is highly emphasised and already in the Framed in this context, this article presents and discusses what public and research agenda, there is not a unique approach at the has been defined as the “REFUGE-ED Dialogic Co-Creation research level about how to do this. Process” (RDCP), which is being implemented across the men- In this article we focus on how research is being co-created and tioned pilot sites in Europe. See Fig. 1 below for an overview of implemented on the ground together with end-users in the fra- both the pilot sites as well as their typology. mework of the EU-funded project REFUGE-ED. This project has been coordinated by the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain and is comprised of nine partners – including universities Bringing in end-users in the elaboration and implementation and civil society organisations across Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, of actions and policies targeted to migrants and refugees Ireland, Italy, and Sweden. REFUGE-ED’s primary goal is to Research in the field of education and health, including MHPSS, identify, co-create, and evaluate evidence-based practices in has for a long time argued for the development and imple- education (formal, non-formal and informal) and MHPSS that mentation of strategies to include end-users in the creation of have been shown to promote educational success, well-being, and scientific knowledge (Díez et al. 2011; Khalfaoui et al. 2020; Wood sense of belonging and social connection in all children (0–18 & Kallestrup 2021; Soltan et al. 2022). Doing this not only years old) from recent migration cohorts, refugees and asylum increases the legitimacy of the knowledge created but also seekers, and unaccompanied minors. This has involved the enhances a better use of research evidence in health and educa- compilation of two, systematic scoping reviews of the effective tional practice (Haines & Donald 1998; Cook et al. 2017; Renfrew practices to address the educational, mental health, and psycho- et al. 2008; Rodríguez-Oramas et al. 2021) due to its firm relation social needs of MAR youth. The effectiveness of these practices to the social reality, taken as a starting point of its creation. was determined by community member self-reports (qualitative Gómez et al. (2011) examined the use of the “communicative or quantitative) of benefit, standardised testing tools, as well as by methodology of research” and it potential to achieve scientific, “evidence of social impact”. By the latter, we refer to the scien- social and political impact. Central to this methodology is the tifically supported proofs that have been obtained when a given active involvement of end-users throughout the whole research research knowledge has informed policies or actions and these process, both as contributors to the richer understanding of their “lifeworlds” (Gómez et al. 2011) and the formation of solutions for more effective social policies based on the best available evi- dence (Sorde Marti & Mertens 2014). The basis of this metho- dology is the dialogic relation between the researcher and the social actors or research subject (end-users of the research out- puts). The former provides knowledge from the scientific com- munity, while the latter deliver insight into their meaning-making related to everyday life (aligning with the “lifeworld” as in Habermas 1987) and on the researched topics. While researchers focus on the interpretations, reflections, and available scientific evidence about the topic being researched; those individuals affected by the researched issue get directly involved in the research process by bringing in their knowledge derived from their daily experience. This contrast is a key element of the communicative methodology and contributes to explaining its transformative potential. It is by means of intersubjective egali- tarian dialogue that both researchers and researched individuals Fig. 1 REFUGE-ED pilot sites and typology. create new knowledge that is adapted to the problems the subjects 2 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 ARTICLE are facing, including specific paths to contribute to improving The strong link between the ways that humanitarian aid is that situation (Gómez et al. 2011). delivered and the well-being of those who receive it is often Padrós and colleagues (Padrós et al. 2011) have analysed cases understood to be the promotion of meaningful participation, the in which the communicative methodology has been associated respect of religious and cultural practices and the empowerment with transformation across educational and social contexts. For of the ability of affected people to holistically promote their well- instance, this occurred with the implementation of SEAs in a being. This is central to a correct understanding of CB MHPSS - if school located in one of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the goal is to improve psychosocial well-being, not only is the Spain between 2005 and 2012, approximately. In the neigh- “what” type of services to be delivered, but also the “how” type, bourhood studied by these authors, the “Dialogic Inclusion i.e., to involve people throughout the whole implementation Contract” (DIC) was put in place. The DIC is guided by the process (UNICEF 2018). This involvement can have different postulates of the communicative approach, namely, the uni- gradations, ranging from informing, consulting, involving, colla- versality of language and action; conceiving people as transfor- borating, and empowering. Something similar has been high- mative social agents; understanding communicative rationality as lighted by the recently completed EU-funded project FOCUS the universal basis for everyone’s linguistic and action capacity (Horizon 2020, No. 822401), which aimed at deepening in the and thus, of maintaining egalitarian dialogue without coercion; understanding of critical dimensions of integration. While doing recognising people’s common sense to be able to interpret the this FOCUS developed the ‘FOCUS approach to dynamic inte- reasons for action; strive for both the disappearance of the pre- gration’, composed by four interrelated core aspects: mental mise of an interpretative hierarchy and ensuring the equal epis- health & psychosocial support; arriving & receiving communities; temological level between the researcher and the ‘researched participatory & co-creative approaches, and multi-stakeholder subjects’; and the dialogic creation of knowledge (Aubert 2011; partnerships & coordination (IFRC PS Centre 2022). Padrós et al. 2011). In sum, it appears that the successful socio-emotional inte- The DIC is a way of transferring those postulates of the gration of refugees, asylum-seekers, and migrants in host com- communicative methodology into a procedure for dialogic work munities is dependent not solely on the nature of educational/ between researchers, professionals, and end-users, aimed at MHPSS interventions, but also on their own involvement in the transforming a ghetto situation. As Aubert (2011) explains, the process. Thus, the end-users must be truly conceived as active and DIC was created so that families, community members, teachers, dynamic agents in the whole implementation process, and their representatives from the administration, politicians, and uni- human agency - acknowledged. Doing this requires a significant versity researchers could get together to discuss and agree upon and sustained collaboration between all stakeholders, including the most appropriate actions to implement in a school that was researchers, grounded in egalitarian dialogue. This is the systematically failing in its mission to counteract the neigh- approach that the REFUGE-ED project is embracing, using as bourhood’s educational exclusion. mirror model the procedures followed for the SEAs’ co-creation Other research approaches that emphasise the participation of and scale up worldwide. end-users is community-based participatory research (herein- after, CBPR), also used in the field of health and healthcare. Those who employ CBPR have highlighted the importance of Drawing on the scalability of the successful educational creating partnerships with the people for whom the research is actions identified by INCLUD-ED ultimately meant to benefit (Wood & Kallestrup 2021). These Successful Educational Actions (SEAs) have been identified by the approaches engage researchers in partnerships with knowledge EU-funded INCLUD-ED (FP6 2006–2011), which defined them users and may be used to challenge assumptions about what is as educational practices that contribute the most to overcoming knowledge, how it is created and for whom. As Jull et al. (2017) inequalities, fostering inclusion, success for all, and social cohe- suggest, especially in the field of health, is that for the generation sion (Flecha 2015). The SEAs rely on the participation of the of knowledge to meet the needs of health systems’ (knowledge) whole community for both implementation and the building of users, context-sensitive research structures and approaches are Learning Communities. These are educational settings that have required (Ibid.). The underpinning question here is, how to best agreed not solely to base their educational model on the imple- engage and involve knowledge-users who deliver and/or receive mentation of SEAs but manage themselves by a whole-school care within health systems? dialogic approach, characterised by ensuring that every voice in In a similar vein, research in the field of MHPSS has also the educational community counts: teachers, students, family documented similar processes of knowledge creation and members, caregivers, other schools’ members and other relevant knowledge transfer using CBPR. More specifically, what has been stakeholders. called a “community-based mental health and psychosocial sup- Schools as Learning Communities are guided by Dialogic port”, is used widely across organisations with international Learning, the learning that results from the interactions occurring esteem such as the Red Cross. Community-based approaches to in an egalitarian dialogue. Such interactions are oriented to the MHPSS (CB MHPSS) in relation to conflict victims, refugees, creation and acquisition of new knowledge, which emerges from asylum-seeking communities, etc. are thus based on the under- consensus. This way, as Racionero and Valls (2007) explain, standing that communities can be drivers of their own Dialogic Learning depends on the interactions between indivi- improvement and change and should be meaningfully involved in duals, and require the maximisation of the use of communicative all stages of MHPSS responses. Emergency-affected people are abilities in any type of context, (the home, the work space, other first and foremost to be viewed as active participants in improving informal and non-formal learning spaces, etc.), as well as a more individual and collective well-being, rather than as passive users active, reflexive and critical participation in society. As can be of services that are designed for them by others. Thus, using CB observed, both Dialogic Learning and the communicative MHPSS approaches facilitate families, groups and communities to approach of research are inherently related as they are based on support and care for others in ways that encourage recovery and similar premises about the centrality of egalitarian dialogue on resilience (IMC & WHO 2019). They also contribute to restoring how we understand, conceive, and construct social reality. Being and/or strengthening those collective structures and systems interactions based on validity claims – and not on power claims is essential to daily life and well-being (IMC & WHO 2019; Zautra at the centre of human communication in both approaches. et al. 2010) Besides, Dialogic Learning (as well as the communicative HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 3 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 approach when doing research) also implies a series of organi- implementation of the SEAs, developed a higher awareness of the sational and participative measures that favour learning (Ibid.) principles underpinning their practices. Two of the longitudinal case studies developed by the above- mentioned INCLUD-ED project were led in schools organised as Learning Communities. Today, more than 9,000 schools across 14 The dialogic co-creation process in the REFUGE-ED project different countries are either Learning Communities or are Making sense of what lies behind: dialogic learning principles implementing some of the SEAs. Since INCLUD-ED at least 10 as guiding quality check points. The RDCP has been informed research projects led at the Spanish or European level have by how SEAs have been scaled up across contexts, as explained in continued researching on SEAs, and these studies have provided the previous section, and in doing this, draws upon the know-how sounded evidence on the high social impact and transferability of of the communicative methodology of research. Underlying this the SEAs (Torras-Gómez et al. 2019; Vieites-Casado et al. 2021; praxis and the whole co-creation process, in each project pilot site Ruiz-Eugenio et al. 2020; Flecha García et al. 2013). The scaling were introduced the seven principles of the Dialogic Learning up and expansion of the SEAs across countries have been moti- (Flecha 2000), which have served as guiding quality check points vated by educational initiatives co-lead by researchers, educa- for both content and meaning. These principles are egalitarian tional communities, local, regional or even national governments, dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation, instrumental and also by companies of the private sector. For instance, the dimension, creation of meaning, solidarity and equality of Natura Institute company from Brazil has been promoting the differences. School as Learning Communities project in seven different Latin These principles have oriented the way in which those in American countries for more than 10 years now (Soler-Gallart & charge of bringing the SEAs and MHPSS actions and approaches Rodrigues de Mello 2020). to the pilots (members of the REFUGE-ED team) and co-creating In research conducted by Vieites-Casado et al. (2021), authors them with stakeholders have looked through the observed social studied the scalability of the SEAs identified within the frames of reality being, thus amplifying the possibilities for transformation. REFUGE-ED in the case of Portugal, where in the three-year Below we briefly explain each of the principles of Dialogic period from 2017–2020 SEAs have been implemented in Learning, and how they are shaping the RDCP across pilots. 139 schools. The analysis points to a procedure different to the First, egalitarian dialogue happens when all contributions and frequently unidirectional flow of information during evidence- interventions are considered based on the validity of the based educative reforms or scale up of innovations. As the argument, not on power relationships and positions of those authors explain, in scalability processes, information usually is formulating that argument. In the RDCP this is being done in transmitted from researchers to governments, from governments organised spaces created in the pilots, such as large group hall to pilot schools (through external trainers or experts linked with meetings in which participants are provided with the information the research) and then to educational settings (Datnow et al., to be discussed, or in small working committees. In turn, in 2002 in Vieites-Casado et al. (2021)). In the case of SEAs, this REFUGE-ED, this process is being facilitated on the ground by study identified three main characteristics of this multidirectional consortium partners across the pilot-countries. dialogue: that it maintains an evidence-based approach, it is Second, cultural intelligence means that everybody no matter egalitarian, and oriented toward social and educational their educational background is recognised as capable of improvement. contributing to the development of the pilots, at different stages In the Portuguese case, dialogue was facilitated by all of the (from the detection of needs to the discussion and decision about agents involved in the process of implementation. As researchers the actions that should be prioritised for implementation). The identified, the link between stakeholders - the constant dialogue concept of cultural intelligence goes beyond the limitations of about SEA implementation and improving the educational out- academic intelligence and encompasses the comprehension of comes of the youth – was central to overcoming t obstacles multiple dimensions of human interaction which include related to translating research into practice. Such dialogue took academic intelligence, practical intelligence as well as commu- place via formal structures (e.g., evaluation meetings, dialogic nicative intelligence (Flecha 2000). Thus, everybody has cultural pedagogical gatherings, and events organised by the national or intelligence regardless of their socio-demographic and cultural the international network of schools) and through informal background. Ensuring cultural intelligence at the time of contact encouraged and sustained by the schools and trainers implementing, facilitates equal empowerment for all participants. (e.g., WhatsApp groups, reciprocal visits, or even video exchange For instance, consider a situation that has already happened at the (Ibid.)). time of implementing a Dialogic Literary Gathering (one of the Another aspect highlighted by the mentioned study is not SEAs) in a pilot in Spain, in Greece and in Bulgaria (prior to solely the number of agents involved in the process, but also the implementation) due to language barriers: some minors who were direction of information flow, and the nature of the dialogue. assigned to read a literary fragment have not yet mastered the Egalitarian dialogue among all participants was prioritsied at each language of the host country. However, strategies can be put in step of the scalability process with an emphasis on how to re- place by teachers or other stakeholders who are participating in create the evidence-based SEAs on the ground. Beyond the the activity to make sure that children understand the text, like growth in the number of schools involved (spread), multi- reading the text with audio-visual support, encouraging other directional dialogue increased the chances of sustainability by children who already know the language to help those who have committing multiple stakeholders in permanent egalitarian dia- more difficulties, etc. logue in the development of the practices (Ibid.). In turn, evi- With respect to transformation, the development of all the dence gathered from informal groups, as well as exchanges and pilots should be oriented to transforming barriers and difficulties school visits done spontaneously by educational stakeholders into possibilities, as in the example provided above. Those doing from, for instance, a centre that was in the initial implementation research with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are aware phase of the process, to others that were less advanced in it, that this group is over-exposed to trauma, often experience reveals a sense of shared ownership since the beginning. Lastly, adversity during their migratory journey and in the time prior to related to the depth, authors documented how teachers engaged the departure of their country of origin and are subject to post- in long and on-going dialogues and debate about the theoretical migration and resettlement problems. All of this must be taken base of Dialogic Learning, as well as practical aspects of the into account when understanding psychological presentation and 4 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 ARTICLE how to provide appropriate support (Im et al. 2021). As Paulo the implementation of the RDCP. The consortium agreed in the Freire states, we are transforming not adapting human beings initial phase of the project that end-users and their respective (Freire 1996). Education can serve as the vehicle to achieve this communities are the ones who must decide anything related to transformation by equipping these children with further skills the procedure: they are the ones who best know their needs, the and competencies needed to resource them across the lifespan. In available resources on the ground, as well as the technicalities that transformative learning actions difficulties become opportunities. need to be considered for a successful implementation of both the By contrast, adaptive learning action responds to difficulties by SEAs and the MHPSS approaches. reproducing and increasing them, thereby reducing the possibility This way, researchers have the duty to ensure that the content of achieving at higher levels. Nevertheless, If the focus is placed of the SEAs and the MHPSS approaches which are being on transformative interactions, both learning and development implemented in the pilots is not altered, as these are supported by can be improved. evidence of social impact. For instance, if a pilot decides to The fourth principle is the instrumental dimension. This refers implement a Dialogic Literary Gathering (DLG), researchers need to those key and foundational learnings and tools of the learning to ensure that these gatherings are done about a work that is process that allow individuals to acquire other subsequent universally considered one of the best human literary creation learnings. For instance, the development of adequate reading (e.g.: Homer’s The Odyssey; The Arabian Nights), not a best- skills is one of these key mechanisms (Soler 2001; Valls, Soler & seller book.1 End-users and researchers work together to establish Flecha 2008; Vygotsky 1978). This instrumental approach in the best ways to co-create the SEAs and MHPSS approaches on education is o important to overcome educational and social the ground. This way, the co-creation process is crafted by all inequalities (Apple & Beane 1995; Ladson-Billings 1994), which is stakeholders involved in the implementation and evaluation highly relevant in the case of refugee children. Through dialogic process. As observed, the RDCP also mirrors the process of learning, conflict between humanist and instrumental dimensions knowledge creation when using the communicative approach. On of approaches in education are overcome due to the fostering of a the one hand, researchers offer the available scientific evidence curriculum in which all effort and resources are directed to ensure about the researched problem or issue at hand. On the other, end- that everybody, refugees and non-refugees, reach standard users bring their meaning-making and real-life contextual instrumental learnings and abilities, which will allow them not experiences to the discussion which can serve to inform potential only to read the word but also to read the world. The actions that can be put in place to tackle the problem. instrumental dimension is therefore based on Vygotsky’s under- In this section we introduce each of the RDCP steps. Figure 2 standing of learning, as that process occurring when people are below shows how the whole process worked: presented with cognitive challenges, that is, when they answer to difficulty with effort (Vygotsky 1978). Step 0. Identification of potential sites where to implement the pilot The fifth principle is creation of meaning. Meaning is created actions. Step 0 of the RDCP consisted of the identification of when all contributions are treated equally regardless of individual, potential pilot sites that would like to join the project and par- cultural, linguistic, or communicative differences and when ticipate in the co-creation and implementation of SEAs and children feel that the educational centre (or the reception centre, MHPSS approaches identified by the research at its initial phase. depending on the type of pilot) recognises and supports their Each partner followed a similar strategy, which was to identify personal identities and their projects for the future. When potential institutions and schedule meetings with those respon- instrumental knowledge is promoted, children are confident that sible for them. In these introductory meetings a brief presentation what they are learning is socially valuable. In such situations, of the project was delivered, providing an overview of how the co- meaning is created and reflected in interaction. creation process was planned. Although these introductory Another central aspect of dialogic learning and underpinning meetings follow similar criteria for its working in terms of content the whole RDCP is solidarity. Solidarity is based on offering the and the dialogic approach that needed to be followed, each same learning opportunities and results to all children, regardless partner decided about technical aspects, such as run them offline of their origins, socio-economic or legal status. In the RDCP this or online due to barriers posed by COVID-19, or upon request by is as important as it is ensuring the participation of children their prospective pilot site. themselves in the process. Promoting academic achievement, a sense of belonging, and wellbeing among children and minors Step 1. Needs analysis with stakeholders and end-users. Once the who are benefiting from REFUGE-ED is the project’s main goal. implementing pilot sites were identified and agreed to become For this reason, the research moves away from compensatory collaborating partners of the project, Step 1 of the RDCP, was approaches of education, emphasising the duty of each society to launched. The main goal of Step 1 was to gather key information ensure children’s fundamental rights. Thus, we are grounded in about the context and the needs of the pilot settings. This the value of solidarity as a core aspect that needs to be promoted involved collecting information about two main aspects: socio- and strengthened among receiving communities, and refugees economic and cultural traits of the context; and needs and themselves. challenges faced by end-users (children, and in some cases their Finally, there is the principle of equality of differences. Offering families). the best possible education, mental health and psychosocial Related to the first aspect, data were gathered about the socio- support implies that everybody, regardless of their origins, economic and cultural context of each pilot, the legal procedures, culture, and beliefs are considered and their voices are also and strategies to gain access to the field, and the constraints and included. The RDCP moves away from those models that foster a challenges that could be encountered once accessed (e.g.: limited homogenised equality and unequal diversity, and focuses on personnel, tight schedule to run extra activities, etc.) were also offering identical outcomes for everyone, ensuring that cultural evaluated. Project partners also collected data about previous diversity is preserved. actions or interventions conducted at the site aimed at supporting MAR youths’ education, integration, and MHPSS needs. That meant that other stakeholders were invited to the co-creation The step by step on the ground. The RDCP has been con- process, as their work was closely related with the main goals of ceptualised by the research team in a series of guiding steps for its the project and a work process in that direction was in place by implementation. These are not static steps but guiding steps for that point. Ensuring the active cooperation by all parties benefits HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 5 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 Fig. 2 REFUGE-ED Dialogic Co-Creation Process. the project’s leading mission to improve the educational and CoP&Ls are often defined as a group of people who share a psychosocial wellbeing of the children could be achieved and common concern or passion for something they do (Domain) and enriched. Qualitative data were collected about the MHPSS, and learn how to do it better (Practice) as they interact regularly educational needs and challenges faced by migrant and refugee (Community) (Wenger 1990). These communities often focus on children in the researched sites considering the three core aspects sharing best practices and generating new knowledge to advance the tackled by the project: academic success; well-being, and sense of domain of their professional praxis together. Regarding their working social belonging. Hence, fieldwork was conducted in all pilot sites procedure, the creation of the CoP&L cannot be a fully standardised with end-users, professionals, and relevant stakeholders. This process across all countries and pilot sites as, as expected. However, information was also complemented with desk research con- common principles can be sought across all pilot sites to ensure the ducted for each pilot site. participation of grassroots communities and end-users. In this sense, Out of Step 1 the REFUGE-ED consortium was able to gain an the REFUGE-ED team agreed upon three criteria for the selection of overview of the characteristics and key aspects of each of the 46 potential members of the CoP&L: representativeness, diversity and pilots, which allowed all researchers to get a richer and context self-governance, and sense of ownership. specific picture of the end-users’ needs and challenges across This way, the CoP&L will fulfil different roles. As a network countries.2 meant to connect local stakeholders (‘Who’) providing continua- tion of the dialogic co-creative process amongst themselves and Step 2. Dialogic selection of practices and co-creation. The main with peers in other pilot sites, as well as to proceed to identify goal of Step 2 is to engage in dialogue with stakeholders at the needs (‘Why’), foster learning (‘What’) and create solutions on implementing pilot sites, sharing and discussing the identified in ‘How’ to produce socially inclusive, supportive and transforma- Step 1 needs and challenges. Following that all participating tive learning environments (‘Where’, ‘When’ and ‘With Whom’), parties should agree upon which SEA and MHPSS approaches especially to local decision and policymakers. Finally, the CoP&L could best address these needs if implemented.3 For doing so, will also play a role in the last phase of the REFUGE-ED project - either an assembly with the whole community (e.g., those residing at the time of creating the Brokering Knowledge Platform. They in a centre or students in the case of schools, educators, social will be key agents when deciding which types of networks and workers, teachers and other professionals, as well as those sta- resources need to be ‘brokered’ to them, and to additional future keholders interested in attending), or a series of small meetings collaborators that can benefit from the Platform. were organised. In these sessions REFUGE-ED researchers explained the detected needs and challenges derived from the Step 4. Training Round 1. The main goal during Step 4 is the fieldwork, and asked participants about their views on them, provision of training on the SEAs as well as in the MHPSS probing further if there were elements that had not been included approaches, both for trainers and for end-users and stakeholders. or considered in the analysis. The project team agreed on a set of Therefore, three levels of training were planned to be carried out: norms that should be observed when any meeting with the Level 1. Training the trainers; Level 2. Training at the state level community was going to be run in the pilots, based on the seven for all pilots in that country; and Level 3. Training at the pilot site. principles of the Dialogic Learning. See Fig. 3 for an account of Figure 3 below is an overview of the training levels: the proposed norms that guided this process in Step 2. Each of the two training types, that is, on SEAs and on MHPPS approaches, are being arranged online or on-site, depending on Step 3. Creation of the Communities of Practice and Learning. The the preference of the centre. Also, their length is agreed upon main goal in Step 3 is to create the “Communities of Practice and between the REFUGE-ED researchers and the pilots, prioritising Learning” (CoP&L), a working group composed of representa- their availability, and considering the type of training they want tives of all types of actors involved in the implementation in the to receive. REFUGE-ED partners agreed on the importance of pilots. For this, the REFUGE-ED team drew on the expertise and generating a collective reflection on how these actions and work done by our partners in the Danish Red Cross, who have approaches can be recreated and adapted to the pilot settings, facilitated CoP&Ls across international humanitarian contexts. without altering their core features Fig. 4. 6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 ARTICLE Be ready to contest power relations Rise up your hand Deal with the “MEs”. In case there are Productive time multiple people wanting to intervene, To participate, rise your hand and To start and finish on time, everybody always prioritize the voices of those respect others: an explicit norm to be has very limited time, and it should be who have not intervened before. Also, stated regarding the debate is related to guaranteed that we make the most of it. beware of potential protagonism that how to ask to speak and intervene can deviate the focus of main discussion The final goal is always to take a Participation is always positive decision All voices count No matter how many people come and Informative participation vs. active All contributions should be join the session, even if there are two participation. Assemblies are not going acknowledged in equal footing no or three people, their time is valuable, to be just to provide information, but matter who is formulating them. so we need to do the best work with also to engage them in a discussion and them. take a decision that will affect the running of the pilots. Anything else? Ask participants if they think that any other norm should be added. Fig. 3 Guiding norms for facilitation process. LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 Training at the state level LEVEL 3 Training the trainers for all pilots. Training at the pilot level. (consortium members & Webinars other interested from pilot sites). Official language (with English/online Official language assistance)/ F2F or online. (with assistance)/Online Fig. 4 Overview of training levels. Step 5. Implementation Round 1. The main goal for this step is to implementation of the actions and the process while unravelling. launch the implementation of the effective practices/approaches It should be noted that all pilot sites vary in their contexts and in at all pilot sites, as decided in Step 2. The centres will decide all the SEAs and MHPPS approaches they have chosen to the aspects of the implementation of the SEAs and MHPSS implement, as well as in the timeline they are following. Taking approaches. For example, the centres will decide how many this into account, SPICE is serving to help streamline our research children will take part in the pilot, or the frequency and duration and data collection procedures across the REFUGE-ED con- of training in the pilots. REFUGE-ED partners are available to sortium. Therefore, the outcome evaluation asks whether our provide practical support in relation to implementation. practices/interventions are associated with changes in the desirable indicators, while the process evaluation is designed to Step 6. Evaluation Round 1. The main goal for this step is to capture people’s experiences of engaging in the RDCP. evaluate the first round of the implementation in the pilots at all sites of the project. In doing so, REFUGE-ED is following the Step 7. Implementation Round 2. Finally, Step 7 is planned as the “Supportive Process for the Inclusion of Children’s Experience” last phase of the RDCP and is aimed at circling back on the whole (hereinafter, SPICE) approach, developed by one of the project process, incorporating the lessons learned and takeaways partners, Trinity College Dublin. SPICE is aligned with the observed in the evaluation step. Additional training will be pro- RDCP, and thus is based on the premise that end-users (i.e., vided for those pilots identified by the research teams, and upon children) and their key integration agents (i.e., teachers, parents, request by the implementing pilot sites. A second round of community groups) should be actively involved in any research implementation will be done in such cases when new or addi- designed to evaluate practices or interventions that seek to tional SEAs and MHPSS approaches are selected to answer newly improve, educational and MHPSS outcomes. That encompasses discovered or current needs. During this period the consortium all processes ranging from initial research design to its imple- will work on the final evaluation of the work done. mentation, interpretation of results, and discussion of findings. SPICE was developed to guide all research partners at the time of evaluating the implementation of the SEAs and MHPPS Discussion and conclusions approaches in their corresponding pilot sites. This way, In this study we have presented the mechanics of the “Refugee comparative data will be gathered across the 46 implementing Dialogic Co-Creation Process” (RDCP) which is currently being pilots regarding both the outcomes obtained after the implemented across 46 pilot sites in six European countries, HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 7 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Sweden, in the context different types of populations other than migrant and refugee of the REFUGE-ED Horizon 2020 project. In doing this, we have children. clarified how the RDCP procedure was informed and formulated In all, the RDCP discussed in this article reveals how the in relation to the expanding SEAs implication across multiple implementing procedures at the time of co-creating a new social different contexts worldwide (Vieites-Casado et al. 2021). reality intended to challenge inequalities cannot be governing Aligning with this procedure also involved drawing on the what is being implemented. Also, establishing the procedures will communicative methodology of research (Gomez et al. 2011). inform those on the ground on how to run actions and practices These aspects provided the researchers with both methodological which have already obtained evidence of social impact, as is the tools and a theoretical lens to analyse the social reality at the case with the SEAs, and some of the MHPPS approaches being selected pilot sites and subsequently co-create the SEAs and the offered and promoted in REFUGE-ED project. What this suggests Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPPS) practices is the need for an on-going and inter-linked dialogue between alongside all end-users and stakeholders. procedures and content, always considering the view of those Seven principles of the Dialogic Learning (Flecha 2000) were end-users on the ground, whose plight research is trying to underlying the communicative methodology of research and co- overcome. creation process in each REFUGE-ED pilot site. This way, ega- litarian dialogue, cultural intelligence, transformation, instru- mental dimension, creation of meaning, solidarity and equality of Data availability differences have served as guiding quality check points (and not Data sharing is not applicable to this research as the article dis- fixed and immobile phases) for both content and meaning, thus cusses a methodological framework implemented by the equipping the research team to unfold the steps of the RDCP. REFUGE-ED project (2021–2023). Process and evaluation data Co-creation is contemporarily cited as a cornerstone of con- generated by REFUGE-ED can be shared upon explicit request ducting research and constructing effective policies in the fields of via e-mail to the project leader at Universitat Autònoma de education and health and MHPPS (Aubert 2011; Jull et al. 2017; Barcelona. Thus, it is planned to be shared through ZENODO Padrós et al. 2011; Wood & Kallestrup 2021). Advancing the and OPENAIRE data bases. implementation of evidence-based policies and actions is a ground-breaking step in the democratisation of science and is Received: 8 December 2022; Accepted: 24 July 2023; invaluable especially when it comes to at-risk communities such as refugees and migrants, and children. However, these approa- ches often fall into the trap of over-bureaucratised processes and deviate from the researchers' initial meaning and intent (Flecha & Soler 2014). With this article, our intention is to contribute to a better understanding of how co-creation can be implemented on Notes 1 Extensive literature has studied the impact of Dialogic Literary Gatherings on the ground, across diverse settings (in terms of geography, types improving educational performance as well as coexistence. We do not develop this of settings, stakeholders involved), while acknowledging the aspect here as it is not directly related with the topic tackled in this article. ongoing changes in the lives of the communities at stake. 2 Data gathered in Step 1 served for the base of a report “Selected actions to address the Each step of the RDCP has been described. However, although integration challenges of migrant children”, which will be available online in the all 46 pilot sites started to engage in the RDCP about the same project’s website: https://www.refuge-ed.eu/ 3 As mentioned in the Introduction section, the effective approaches in MHPSS time, in month six of the project (July 2021), they have not identified were the following: Creating a Safe Space; Providing psychoeducation; progressed equally in the timeline followed in each step. For Facilitating creative expression. Those in the field of education, for which there are instance, the COVID-19 crisis created barriers at the time of sound evidence of social impact are the “Successful Educational Practices” (SEAs), working on the ground with refugee and migrant children in namely: Literary Gatherings; Interactive Groups; Educative Participation of the some of the pilot sites. In others, changes in the national legis- Community; Family education; Dialogic Pedagogical Education for teachers; and lation in terms of places of settlement of refugees and unac- Dialogic Conflict prevention and resolution model. companied minors also impacted the work that some pilots already committed to REFUGE-ED were doing, delaying the References running of the RDCP. Working with the social reality both in Afifi RA, Makhoul J, El Hajj T, Nakkash RT (2011) Developing a logic model for youth mental health: participatory research with a refugee community in practice and theoretically is a dynamic process, unable to provide Beirut. Health Policy Plann 26(6):508–517 constants in terms of our surrounding political, migratory, and Apple MW, Beane JA (1995) Democratic schools. Association for Supervision and public lives. Therefore, except for the coronavirus pandemic, our Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA work, as well as many others, was affected by the Ukrainian Aubert A (2011) Moving beyond social exclusion through dialogue. Int Stud Soc conflict and the changing situation in the countries of the Middle Educ 21(1):63–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2011.543854 Cantekin D (2019) Syrian refugees living on the edge: policy and practice impli- East and Africa. On the ground that meant that while we started cations for mental health and psychosocial wellbeing. Int Migr working with institutions hosting primarily MAR children, 57(2):200–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/IMIG.12508 coming from the latter countries, the institutions, societies and Coburn CE (2003) Rethinking scale: moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting our teams had to switch and adapt to the new challenges evoking change. Sage J 32(6):3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032006003 (forced) migration from both Ukraine and Russia. Nevertheless, Cook T, Boote J, Buckley N, Vougioukalou S, Wright M (2017) Accessing parti- cipatory research impact and legacy: developing the evidence base for par- the RDCP provided a flexible framework which can be redesigned ticipatory approaches in health research. Educ Action Res 25(4):473–488. to accommodate work with communities no matter their country https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1326964 of origin or culture. Datnow A, Hubbard L, Mehan H (2002) Extending educational reform: From one In addition to this, it should be noted that there are some school to many. Routledge/Falmer limitations to generalisability. Currently, the RDCP has only been Díez J, Gatt S, Racionero S (2011) Placing immigrant and minority family and community members at the School’s Centre: the role of community parti- implemented across six European countries. Although it has been cipation. Eur J Educ 46(2):184–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1465-3435. explained here that there is great potential to extend it to new 2011.01474.X settings, further research is needed to explore the outcomes of European Commission (2020) Action plan on integration and inclusion 2021-2027 implementing it in additional contexts beyond Europe, or with (testimony of European Commission). https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/ 8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 ARTICLE policies/migration-and-asylum/legal-migration-and-integration/integration/ Soltan F, Cristofalo D, Marshall D, Purgato M, Taddese H, Vanderbloemen L, actionplan-integration-and-inclusion_en Barbui C, Uphoff E (2022) Community-based interventions for improving Flecha R, Soler M (2014) Communicative methodology: successful actions and mental health in refugee children and adolescents in high-income countries. dialogic democracy. Current Sociol 62(2):232–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858. 001139211351514 CD013657.PUB2 Flecha García R, García R, Aitor C, González G (2013) Transferencia de tertulias Sorde Marti T, Mertens DM (2014) Mixed methods research with groups at risk: literarias dialógicas a instituciones penitenciarias, Transfer of Dialogue-based new developments and key debates. J Mixed Methods Res 8(3):207–211. Literary Gatherings to Prisons. 360, 140–161. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988- https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814527916 592X-RE-2013-360-224 Torras-Gómez E, Ramis M, Guo M (2019) Sociological theory from dialogic Flecha R (2000) Sharing words: theory and practice of dialogic learning. Rowman democracy. Int Multidiscip J Soc Sci 8(3):216–234. https://doi.org/10.17583/ & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, AM RIMCIS.2019.4919 Flecha R (2014) Definition of scientific evidence of social impact. This work is licensed UNICEF (2018) United Nations Children’s Fund. Operational guidelines on under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 community based mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian International License. https://archive.org/details/@crea_research settings: three-tiered support for children and families (field test version). Flecha R (2015) Successful educational actions for inclusion and social cohesion in UNICEF, New York Europe. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- Valls R, Soler M, Flecha R (2008) Lectura dialógica: interacciones que mejoran y 319-11176-6 aceleran la lectura. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 46:71–87 Flecha R, Soler-Gallart M, Sordé T (2015) Europe must fund social sciences. Nature Vieites-Casado M, Flecha A, Mara LC, Girbés-Peco S (2021) Dialogic methods for 528(7581):193–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/528193d scalability of successful educational actions in Portugal. Sage J, 20. https://doi. Freire P (1996) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin. https://www.penguin.co.uk/ org/10.1177/16094069211020165 books/22583/pedagogy-of-the-oppressed/ Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological Gómez A, Puigvert L, Flecha R (2011) Critical communicative methodology: processes. In Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences. https://doi.org/ informing real social transformation through research. Qual Inq 10.1007/978-3-540-92784-6 17(3):235–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410397802 Wenger E (1990) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Habermas J (1987) The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2: lifeworld and learning in doing: social, cognitive and computational perspectives. Cam- system: a critique of functionalist reason. Beacon Press, Boston bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Haines A, Donald A (1998) Making better use of research findings. BMJ Wood B, Kallestrup P (2021) Benefits and challenges of using a participatory 317(7150):72–75. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.317.7150.72 approach with community-based mental health and psychosocial support IFRC PS Centre (2022) FOCUS implementation guide to dynamic integration. interventions in displaced populations. Transcultural Psychiatry https://pscentre.org/?resource=focus-implementation-guide-to-dynamic- 58(2):283–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461520983626 integration&selected=single-resource Zautra AJ, Arewasikporn A, Davis MC (2010) Resilience: promoting well-being Im H, Rodriguez C, Grumbine JM (2021) A multitier model of refugee mental through recovery, sustainability, and growth. Res Hum Dev 7(3):221–238. health and psychosocial support in resettlement: toward trauma-informed https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2010.504431 and culture-informed systems of care. Psychological Serv 18(3):345–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/SER0000412 International Medical Corps & World Health Organization (IMC & WHO) (2019). Acknowledgements IASC Guidance Note on Community-based approaches to MHPSS in REFUGE-ED: Effective practices in education, mental health and psychosocial support emergencies | HumanitarianResponse. https://www.humanitarianresponse. for the integration of refugee children (2021–2023). Website: https://www.refuge-ed.eu/. info/en/operations/ukraine/document/iasc-guidance-note-community-based- The REFUGE-ED project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 approaches-mhpss-emergencies research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101004717. Jull J, Giles A, Graham, ID (2017) Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Author contributions Implement Sci, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/S13012-017-0696-3 Conceptualization: TSM. Writing—original draft preparation: EA. Writing—review and Khalfaoui A, García-Carrión R, & Villardón-Gallego L (2020). Bridging the gap: editing: all authors. Supervision: AF, OS, and TSM. All authors have read and agreed to engaging Roma and migrant families in early childhood education through the published version of the manuscript. trust-based relationships. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1817241 Ladson-Billings G (1994) The dreamkeepers: successful teachers of AfricanAmer- ican children. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Competing interests Padrós M, Garcia R, de Mello R, Molina S (2011) Contrasting scientific knowledge The authors declare no competing interests. with knowledge from the lifeworld: the dialogic inclusion contract. Sage J 17(3):304–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410397809 Racionero S, Valls R (2007) Dialogic Learning: A communicative approach to Ethical approval As explained above, note that this article discusses a methodological framework imple- teaching and learning. In: The Praeger Handbook of Educational and Psy- mented by the H2020 REFUGE-ED project (No. 101004717), so it does not report any chology, vol. 3, Chapter 65, pp 548–557 study already conducted with human participants performed by any of the author. Renfrew MJ, Dyson L, Herbert G, McFadden A, McCormick F, Thomas J, Spiby H Nonetheless, all data gathered under the REFUGE-ED project (not presented neither (2008) Developing evidence-based recommendations in public health – disclosed in this article) complies with the Ethics Approval Procedure required by the incorporating the views of practitioners, service users and user representa- Horizon 2020 research program, funded by the European Commission, as well with the tives. Health Expect 11(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1369-7625.2007. requirements of the ad-hoc REFUGE-ED Ethics Board. 00471.X Rodríguez-Oramas A, Alvarez P, Ramis-Salas M, Ruiz-Eugenio L (2021) The impact of evidence-based dialogic training of special education teachers on Informed consent the creation of more inclusive and interactive learning environments. Front In order to comply with ethical standards, the REFUGE-ED Ethics Board requested Psychol 12:586. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.641426/BIBTEX Informed Consent to all six ‘Implementing Partners’, that is, those countries in which the Ruiz-Eugenio L, Roca-Campos E, León-Jiménez S, Ramis-Salas M (2020) Child Refuge-ed Dialogic Co-Creation Process is being implemented namely: the Autonomous well-being in times of confinement: the impact of dialogic literary gatherings University of Barcelona (UAB, Spain); Kentro Merimnas Oikogeneias Kai Paidiou (KMOP, transferred to homes. Front Psychol 11:2675. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG. Greece); New Bulgarian University (Bulgaria), University of Firenze and Associazione 2020.567449/BIBTEX Culturale Cooperazioneinternazionale Sud Sud (CISS, Italy), Trinity College Dublin (Ire- Rustage K, Crawshaw A, Majeed-Hajaj S, Deal A, Nellums L, Ciftci Y, Fuller SS, land), and Save the Children Sweden (Sweden). Besides, the research investigations follows Goldsmith L, Friedland JS, Hargreaves S (2021) Participatory approaches in the Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the EU new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). the development of health interventions for migrants: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2021-053678 Soler M (2001) Dialogic reading. A new understanding of the reading event. Additional information Unpublished PhD Thesis, Harvard University Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Teresa Sordé-Martí. Soler-Gallart M & Rodrigues de Mello R (2020) School as learning communities. DIO Press, New York, USA Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints Soler-Gallart M (2017) Achieving Social Impact. Sociology in the Public Sphere (Springer B). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.17583/ Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in rimcis.2017.3091 published maps and institutional affiliations. HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 9 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. © The Author(s) 2023 10 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2023)10:463 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01967-6