Summary

The Social Justice Jam: Spaces for Change was a space to explore solutions to communities’ challenges through design-thinking and problem-based learning (Nerantzi et al., 2025). Jams are short, intensive and interdisciplinary learning programmes over one or few days that aim to harness collective creativity to provide solutions to pressing challenges (Tang, Vezzani, & Eriksson 2020) and are similar to community-based learning Hackathons (Lara & Lockwood, 2016). The Social Justice Jam was run as a three-day virtual intensive and cross-boundary programme in June 2024. It brought together students and staff to design, facilitate and co-create solutions for social justice. It entailed both live interactive sessions, group work and self-paced activities. The Jam was a perfect illustration of ‘learning without borders’, with the aim of advancing social justice solutions, compelling learners to challenge-focused learning and critically coming up with diverse solutions to problems faced by the local communities of Seacroft and Mamelodi in both Leeds and Pretoria. Moreover, the Jam gave the students an opportunity to make new connections in the sustainability field. What follows are questions we asked students to reflect on based on their experience with the Social Justice Jam as co-hosts or facilitators. Ethical approval for was received in advance of the research (University of Leeds research ethics committee application number 1669) and all ethical permissions and protocols were followed.

What did you do? Why did you do it (how does it fit with the literature and any other evidence)?

Students 1 and 2

The Jam acted as a learning experience for both attendees and facilitators. The Jam gave us a platform to help raise awareness and make a small impact on the local communities involved in the Jam. The Jam also gave us an opportunity to network with a vast variety of people, helped us make connections not just in the sustainability industry but also people at the forefront of the communities, of whom we were trying to make an impact on.

The Jam focused on creativity, making the delegates think actively about different scenarios and use different methods to channel creativity and come up with forward-thinking solutions on topical issues such as funding in the local communities and how diverse stakeholders can become involved in issues faced by such communities.

We felt empowered and supported prior to and throughout the Jam through the training provided and the non-hierarchical structure. Working in an online, transglobal collaborative environment, we helped our groups of participants share their experiences through using facilitated discussion and tools such as the Six Thinking Hats (de Bono Group, 2019). These methods were chosen by the group as ways to encourage community participation and development in a democratic process, through encouraging agency and voice from those involved (Ledwith, 2016). Importantly, the input of everyone was equally received as important, and local knowledge held valuable.

Students 3 and 4

We worked to promote and co-host the Jam. To generate interest, we engaged directly with students at a sustainability pop-up stall on the University of Leeds campus, highlighting how participation could benefit them both personally and professionally. Simultaneously, we ran a strategic social media campaign to reach a diverse audience of students, academic staff, and community members, reinforcing the Jam’s commitment to sustainability, social justice, and collaborative problem-solving. Our objective was to raise awareness, inspire curiosity, and encourage broad participation, recognizing that sustainability is relevant across disciplines. Research on community engagement highlights those participatory approaches, where individuals feel directly involved, are more likely to foster long-term commitment to sustainability (Kiss et al., 2022). These direct interactions, both online and in person, proved to be powerful tools for engaging potential participants.

Beyond promotion, we co-hosted the Jam, ensuring the smooth facilitation of presentations and activities over three days. Our motivation stemmed from a desire to empower participants from diverse backgrounds to recognize their role in sustainability efforts and contribute to collaborative solutions. Local engagement is crucial in building momentum for systemic change, and the Jam exemplified how small, collective actions can address global challenges. On the final day, we served as panelists, reviewing group presentations that tackled community issues – an experience that underscored the power of collective innovation.

This approach aligns with the principles of Participatory Research, which emphasises collaboration with those directly affected by the issues under study. In this case, the Jam reframed community members from Seacroft and Mamelodi as active contributors rather than mere subjects of traditional research, valuing their lived experiences (Cargo & Mercer, 2008; Jagosh et al., 2012; Vaughn & Jacquez, 2020). Drawing on key frameworks, such as relationship-building, shared understanding, and action planning, the Social Justice Jam demonstrated how participatory methodologies can foster inclusive, context-specific solutions to real-world challenges (Cornish et al., 2023).

How did students, staff, and community members respond? How is this a form of active learning?

Student 1

In terms of the staff, students and community members involved in the Jam, they responded well, and some have even stayed in touch after the Jam itself. Some members of the community really enjoyed the platform to share their issues within their communities, with the Jam really acting as a pedestal to shine a light on key issues, leading to a collaborative discussion between students and staff from the University of Leeds and both communities.

In terms of active learning, it is seen as the delegates being able to work collaboratively and creatively to come up with a forward-thinking solution. It is considered a form of active learning because the scenarios act as a point of reflection which can help the delegates consolidate learning and make connections to the knowledge gained during the Jam. There was also active participation throughout the jam, with the delegates participating in the live and group sessions. This allowed them to take ownership of the learning process and increase engagement levels through the course of the three days.

Students 3 and 4

Local organisations, such as LS14 Trust and Mothong African Heritage, played a crucial role in shaping discussions by providing invaluable insights into the real-world challenges faced by their communities. This ensured that both communities were central to the Jam, with their lived experiences guiding the dialogue. The event exemplified active learning, as participants were not passive recipients of information but co-creators of knowledge, collaboratively developing contextually relevant solutions.

Student 2

Participants and hosts of the event all responded generously with their time and knowledge. There was a great spirit of collaboration and co-creation, with participants listening to presentations respectfully and asking thoughtful and useful questions. By taking learning out of the classroom for students, and applying it to real-life scenarios, active learning took place. Through the application of knowledge gained on programmes of study, it became clear that all students had relevant information that could assist in the problem-solving process, even where the degree may not have immediately seemed to have links to sustainability or community development. Through enabling space to question structures and processes that impacted both communities, it sparked moments of critical pedagogical work in the Freirean spirit (Freire, 1970), alongside illustrating possibilities of applying learning in tangible ways. Personally, the jam supported my interest in community development through allowing me insight into the power of collaborative and fast-paced initiatives which harness the opportunity to build relationships and utilise interdisciplinary knowledge.

How did you make sure your approach was inclusive?

Student 1

We developed a participant handbook, which we adapted from the first day to help the participants understand the scenario, break it down into the key components, and come up with the end product , which was developing a solution for the funding, and  identifying key stakeholders involved in each of the processes within both of the local communities (Wood et al., 1976). This scaffolding approach, helping learners break tasks down into more manageable tasks, in order to reach the long-term goal of coming up with a solution to the Jam itself was proven successful.

Students 5 and 2

Considering inclusivity from a collaborative perspective, we ensured that all voices were valued – particularly those with indigenous experience from the communities involved – and expertise was prioritised. There were some technical challenges to be mindful of – specifically the reliability of internet connection for our participants in Pretoria and Mamelodi – these were worked around with flexibility wherever possible, but it is something to be mindful of for future synchronous sessions.

Student 3

We prioritised inclusivity by ensuring that community members and organisations were active contributors to the Jam (Wenger, 1999). The event also demonstrated how digital engagement can bridge stakeholders, bringing them together on a shared platform. In-person interactions would have been challenging – if not impossible – for connecting the communities of Seacroft and Mamelodi. Moreover, we approached the issues not solely as sustainability challenges but through the perspectives of these communities.

How did you ensure that it is sustainable?

Student 1

The connections with the communities are seen as sustainable because we are keeping in touch with delegates from the jam and trying to form a long-term view in terms of how we can support them going forward.

Student 3

The Open Educational Resources (OER) (University of Leeds Discovery Delivery Group, 2024) we developed provide a foundation for those who wish to replicate our work in the future, ensuring broader impact and long-term sustainability (Butcher et al., 2023). Inclusive participation, rooted in active learning, fostered a sense of ownership among community members – an essential factor in preventing the initiative from fading over time (Wenger, 1999).

Student 5

Including community members (indigenous) in the learning enhanced sustainability as it promoted intergenerational knowledge transfer among the participants (Freire, 1970).

Student 2

Through the connections fostered throughout the jam, the aim was to create sustainable, transformational potential. Funding was available through University of Leeds Horizons’ Institute ‘What comes after the SDGs?’ fund to support the implementation of ideas by the communities after the event had finished.

How can others adapt your approach to their own context?

Student 1

For future jams, others could take the Jam blueprint we developed and use it for a different topic. It could be any topic; it doesn’t have to be sustainability or social justice related. In addition, future users could adapt to organising the Jam as a hybrid event to make it more accessible, but through which they can still reach global communities further afield. It could also be run with local schools to raise awareness of sustainability or other topics and encourage active learning from a younger age as well.

Student 5

The Jam has a degree of flexibility to accommodate various modes of learning or to allow for merging them together. This is quite beneficial as it ensures that most people are included and can identify with the kind of learning that works for them. This entails opening the learning to all participants regardless of their ages. The power of the Jam could lie in adapting it for non-formal and informal learning to include everyone.

Communities can run their own Jams using our OER, identify and solve their own challenges related to the UN SDGs and become empowered to share their knowledge and solutions.

Key takeaways

The above authentic narratives by student facilitators and co-hosts provide valuable insights into their experience of working closely with staff as partners during the Social Justice Jam: Spaces for Change. What follows are key takeaways that will be of value for students and educators considering educational jams.

• The event successfully brought together diverse participants (students, staff, community leaders, community development workers and other interested parties) to engage in active learning. The participants reflected on two key scenarios which supported making connections between their academic knowledge and change-making and helped student facilitators and co-hosts develop employability skills.
• The student co-hosts and facilitators worked to promote inclusive working through adapting resources, valuing all experiences and fostering a collaborative atmosphere. Hosting the Jam online removed barriers of travel, enabling those in Leeds (UK) and Mamelodi (SA) to participate together.
• Sharing the Jam resources through OER provides opportunities for adaptation in the future by other groups wishing to conduct collaborative sessions. This also ensures sustainability and allows for development of resources.

References

Butcher, N., Zimmermann, A., Levey, L., & von Gogh, K. (2023). Open educational resources. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54676/LBIV3337

Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 325-350. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824

Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U., Delgado, J., Rua, M., de-Graft Aikins, A., & Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1

De Bono Group (2019). Six Thinking Hats. De Bono Group Website. [Online]. [Accessed 3 January 2025]. https://www.debonogroup.com/services/core-programs/six-thinking-hats/

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Continuum.

Jagosh, J., Macaulay, A. C., Pluye, P., Salsberg, J., Bush, P. L., Henderson, J., Sirett, E., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Herbert, C. P., Seifer, S. D., Green, L. W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2012). Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: Implications of a realist review for health research and practice. The Milbank Quarterly, 90(2), 311–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x

Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Hörschelmann, K., Salk, C.F., Takahashi, W., & Wamsler, C. (2022). Citizen participation in the governance of nature‐based solutions. Environmental Policy and Governance. 32(3), 247-272.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163320

Lara, M., & Lockwood, K. (2016). Hackathons as Community-Based Learning: a Case Study. TechTrends 60, 486–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0101-0

Ledwith, M. (2016). Community Development in Action: Putting Friere into Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.

Nerantzi, C., Kioupi, V., Malone. C., McDonald, D., Mushonga, T., Valance, S., Borde, R., Rofe, JS., Parsons, M., Roxby Warlde, N., Michel-Villarreal, R., Mack, A., Bezbaruah, R., Nyabundi, A., & Pullman, C. (2025). Design thinking as a pedagogical approach for the Jam, a fast-paced cross-institutional programme with a focus on social justice. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2024.2444517

Tang, T., Vezzani, V., & Eriksson, V. (2020). Developing Critical Thinking, Collective Creativity Skills and Problem Solving through Playful Design Jams. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100696

University of Leeds Discovery Delivery Group (2024). Social Justice Jam 2024: Spaces for Change https://leeds.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/collectionDiscovery?vid=44LEE_INST:VU1&collectionId=81348055860005181&lang=en, accessed 29 August 2025

Vaughn, L. M., & Jacquez, F. (2020). Participatory research methods–choice points in the research process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.13244

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

About the authors

We are a group of academics, students and professional services staff from the University of Leeds from diverse schools and faculties, who as part of the Discovery Delivery project team co-created and co-hosted the Social Justice Jam: Spaces for Change, a three-day online, interdisciplinary and intercultural programme on social justice.