Content area
This research offers an in-depth analysis of participatory cultural projects engaging migrant communities across six distinct European locations. By interviewing the Principal Investigators (PIs) of these projects, this study examines technology’s dual role as both facilitator and barrier, alongside the critical role of human facilitators in fostering trust and sustainable engagement. It highlights the nuanced dynamics of power relations and the reluctance of participants to voice challenges, which can impede participation. Despite these hurdles, the research reveals the transformative impact of innovative approaches in working with vulnerable populations. The findings contribute to the fields of Social Sciences and Communication Sciences, stressing the importance of culturally sensitive technological practices, digital literacy programs, and sustainable, modular communication frameworks. These insights underscore the complex interplay between technology, societal integration, and community engagement, aiming to inform and enhance future cultural endeavors through tailored, empathetic approaches.
1. Introduction
In an era marked by escalating international migration, influenced by socio-economic disparities and the forces of globalization [1,2], societies are striving to become genuinely multicultural. Cultural institutions, such as museums and art organizations, are recognized for their role in fostering inclusivity and intercultural understanding [3,4]. By leveraging the arts, these entities create shared spaces that encourage cultural exchange and dialogue [5], thereby facilitating societal integration.
Engagement with migrant communities through cultural projects significantly contributes to social cohesion [6,7]. These projects validate diverse cultural identities and experiences, promoting visibility within the wider community [8]. They emphasize community building and facilitate the integration of migrants, enhancing their sense of belonging [9].
To be impactful, these initiatives often employ participatory methodologies [6,10,11,12], with facilitators playing a crucial role in ensuring active engagement and equitable participation [13]. Yet, cultural representation must be approached sensitively to avoid reinforcing stereotypes [14,15]. Challenges persist, such as essentializing cultures [16] and navigating power dynamics [17,18]. Addressing structural barriers like the digital divide is also imperative for inclusive participation [19].
At the vanguard of these endeavors are Europe’s cultural institutions, facing challenges such as varied project objectives, opaque processes, and sustainability concerns [20,21]. Our study, informed by a systematic review of six Horizon 2020 projects and qualitative analysis through interviews with PIs, centers on two key research questions: What challenges arise during participatory activities in cultural projects involving migrant communities? How does technology act as a facilitator and a barrier in these projects?
In this paper, we explore these research questions by drawing on empirical data from interviews with PIs, offering a grounded perspective on the real-world implementation of participatory cultural projects. The paper is organized as follows: the methodology section outlines our systematic approach and interview process; the findings section delves into thematic insights on facilitators’ roles, power dynamics, technology integration, and sustainability challenges; and the discussion and conclusion sections contextualize these findings within existing literature while proposing recommendations for future practice.
This study makes a meaningful contribution to Communication Sciences by examining how communication serves as a vital tool for fostering social inclusion, facilitating cultural exchange, and supporting participatory practices in cultural initiatives. As a discipline at the intersection of sociology, cultural studies, and digital media, Communication Sciences is uniquely positioned to explore how meaning, relationships, and engagement are created and sustained. Our findings emphasize the critical role of culturally sensitive communication strategies, the use of digital tools for engagement, and participatory frameworks in addressing broader social challenges. These insights align with the core focus of Communication Sciences on human interaction across both mediated and non-mediated contexts.
2. Literature Review
In this section, we undertake an exploration of the multifaceted dynamics involved in cultural projects targeting migrant communities. We unpack the opportunities and challenges presented by technology in amplifying participation and access. Power relations, inherent challenges, and the quest for sustainable practices within these projects are also unraveled, laying bare the complexity of engagement in these cultural spaces. Finally, we venture into the realm of innovation, probing the potentialities and emerging practices that promise enhanced engagement with migrant communities. Each subsection offers an in-depth dissection of these dimensions, illuminating the nuanced mechanisms at play in cultural projects designed to serve migrant communities.
2.1. Technology’s Role in Facilitating Participation and Its Challenges
The integration of digital technology into cultural projects has prompted a significant shift in the structure and reach of these initiatives. Digital platforms and tools have created new arenas for engagement and participation, allowing cultural projects to extend their impact beyond traditional physical boundaries [22,23]. As per the findings of Alvarado Garcia and colleagues [24] and Davis and colleagues [19], such technological avenues have broadened the scope of participation and have made cultural programs more accessible, particularly for migrants facing economic or social barriers.
Innovative forms of digital interaction such as interactive documentaries, interactive exhibitions, digital storytelling, and online discussions offer more diverse modes of engagement [20]. These digital avenues cater to different audience preferences and capabilities, thereby increasing the potential for wider and more diverse participation. Hahm and colleagues [14] emphasize how the rise of smartphones and social media platforms has further extended the reach of cultural initiatives, potentially mitigating aspects of the digital divide and democratizing access to cultural content.
Digital technology provides migrants and other marginalized communities with a platform to voice their stories and experiences on their terms. This democratization can empower these communities by giving them the tools to express their unique perspectives and lived experiences, fostering a sense of visibility and validation within the wider community [5].
However, the incorporation of digital technology into cultural projects is not without its complexities and challenges. Despite the widespread availability of digital technologies, access to these tools and the ability to effectively use them—often termed digital literacy—is unevenly distributed across different socio-economic strata [19]. This digital divide can exacerbate existing social inequalities, hindering participation from those who lack necessary access or skills. For migrant communities, these challenges are often intensified due to additional barriers like language difficulties and unfamiliarity with technology [17].
Moreover, concerns regarding safety, privacy, and the ethical use of technology can present significant challenges. Activists and cultural institutions must be mindful of designing for safety, considering constraints related to technology and infrastructure, and supporting ethical practices in community data collection and dissemination [24].
Furthermore, the long-term sustainability of digital platforms should be considered, as highlighted by Taylor and colleagues [21]. The transition from research and development phases to maintaining the project post-completion poses issues of ownership, maintenance, and user support. Researchers need to prepare for the “handover” of technologies and should ensure their continued usefulness and appropriateness for the communities they serve.
While digital technology offers exciting possibilities for enhancing participation and engagement in cultural projects, it requires careful and thoughtful application. Future research and practice need to devise strategies that maximize the benefits of technology while simultaneously addressing its potential drawbacks. This includes ensuring digital platforms are accessible, engaging, safe, and respectful of users’ rights, as well as addressing issues of long-term sustainability.
2.2. Power Dynamics, Challenges, and Sustainability in Cultural Projects Involving Migrant Communities
Understanding and navigating power dynamics within cultural projects involving migrant communities is crucial. As outlined by Fung [25] and further elaborated by Del Gaudio and colleagues [13], the deeply embedded socio-political disparities can shape these dynamics, affecting the overall efficacy of cultural projects. These power imbalances, appearing in various forms such as unequal distribution of decision-making authority or disparity in resource allocation, can inadvertently silence the voices of the migrant communities. Furthermore, concerns around potential marginalization or backlash can lead to a reluctance among participants to express their challenges or viewpoints. The resulting lack of open communication and collaboration can significantly hinder the achievement of project objectives and negatively impact community engagement and trust-building efforts.
Alongside power dynamics, the sustainability of cultural projects involving migrant communities presents a significant challenge. Merli [9] highlights the difficulties inherent in maintaining momentum, given the often-transient nature of migrant communities and the resource limitations frequently encountered by cultural institutions. This challenge is amplified by the need for continuous funding, efficient project management, and the nurturing of enduring relationships within the community. Sustaining cultural projects over an extended period necessitates an active, ongoing commitment and a deep understanding of the community’s evolving needs and circumstances.
However, emerging research and practices suggest that these challenges can be effectively addressed. Novel models of participatory activities are being developed that prioritize shared decision-making and collective ownership, helping to mitigate power imbalances and foster a sense of community ownership [6,21]. By actively involving participants in all stages of project design and implementation, these models foster a stronger sense of ownership and belonging among community members. This inclusive approach can strengthen community bonds, enhance community engagement, and improve project longevity.
In parallel, the role of digital technology in shaping cultural projects is being increasingly recognized. Technological advancements offer new ways of engaging communities, fostering participation, and managing resource constraints [14,22,23]. Digital platforms can extend the reach of cultural projects, offering opportunities for wider and more inclusive participation. Additionally, they provide tools for effective project management and resource mobilization, which are critical for project sustainability.
Despite these promising developments, achieving project sustainability is not straightforward and requires a careful, multifaceted approach. Future research and practice should strive to explore and address the complexities of power dynamics, community engagement, and sustainability within cultural projects involving migrant communities. Emphasis should be given to understanding how digital technology can contribute to these goals while identifying and addressing potential challenges, such as the digital divide and the long-term maintenance of digital platforms. It is critical to maintain a reflective, adaptive approach that continually reassesses and responds to the evolving dynamics within these complex, multifaceted projects.
2.3. Innovation and Opportunities in Engaging with Migrant Communities
The modern landscape of cultural projects has exhibited a growing need for innovative and targeted engagement strategies designed with migrant communities in mind. Research suggests that bespoke strategies that accommodate the unique needs and circumstances of these communities can significantly enhance their engagement and positively influence project outcomes [10,26]. Specifically, participatory activities that promote shared experiences, storytelling, and creative self-expression have proven effective in fostering community cohesion and facilitating mutual understanding [6,10,11,12]. These methodologies, rooted in common human experiences and emotional resonance, provide platforms for cross-cultural dialogue and exchange, thereby helping to reduce cultural barriers and foster a sense of belonging among migrants [8,15].
In spite of promising advancements, there is a notable scarcity of accounts detailing the challenges encountered by cultural projects that engage with migrant communities. This study aims to fill that gap by providing empirical insights into these challenges and considering how they can be navigated effectively.
In the age of digital technology, the landscape of cultural projects is continually evolving, presenting new opportunities and challenges for engagement. Digital tools and platforms have demonstrated significant potential for promoting participation and engagement [22,23]. However, the effective use of these digital platforms must be informed by an understanding of the potential challenges that may arise, such as issues related to the digital divide and the sustainability of these digital interventions. Furthermore, while these digital technologies hold promise for democratizing access to cultural content, care must be taken to ensure they do not exacerbate existing social inequalities [14,21]. Further innovation can be explored through effective collaboration and partnership with local actors, such as NGOs, which play a pivotal role in these cultural projects [13]. Their mediatory role can significantly enhance the efficacy of cultural projects, offering invaluable local insights and serving as a bridge between project organizers and migrant communities. However, these collaborations are not without complexities, and it is crucial to be mindful of potential power dynamics and the challenges that these partnerships may present [5].
The present research contributes to this evolving discourse by offering an empirical examination of the challenges, opportunities, and innovative strategies encountered in cultural projects engaging migrant communities. It aims to enrich the understanding of the dynamics at play and inform the design and implementation of future initiatives. By fostering inclusion, sustaining participation, and promoting long-term project success, this research aims to provide a roadmap for effective engagement with migrant communities, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive and diverse cultural sector. In this study, a project’s ‘success’ is evaluated based on measurable outcomes such as participant engagement, satisfaction, and the achievement of stated project objectives. Evidence for success includes data from interviews with PIs, participant feedback, and observed outcomes such as continued use of project outputs, increased participation, or cultural resonance.
3. Materials and Methods
This study explored participatory cultural projects engaging migrant communities through a combination of systematic project analysis and semi-structured interviews. The focus was on understanding how these projects were designed, implemented, and perceived by their key organizers. While the study offers valuable insights from PIs and project representatives, it does not include the voices of migrant participants. This limitation arises from practical and ethical considerations, such as data privacy concerns and difficulties accessing participants from completed projects. Future studies should address this gap by incorporating participant perspectives for a more inclusive understanding of these initiatives.
3.1. Study Design
The research employed a two-phase methodological approach: a systematic analysis of European research projects and interviews with their representatives. This design aimed to examine the dynamics of participatory cultural projects, focusing on themes such as technology integration, sustainability, and power dynamics.
3.1.1. Systematic Analysis
The first phase involved an extensive review of European Commission-funded projects (
A detailed examination of project descriptions, fact sheets, and reporting tabs further refined the sample to 10 projects. This selection process prioritized projects that explicitly incorporated participatory methodologies with migrant communities and focused on cultural engagement. Projects were excluded if they lacked a participatory component, focused primarily on policy analysis without direct community involvement, or had a broad scope unrelated to cultural initiatives. Representatives of these projects were invited to participate in the study, and interviews were conducted with representatives from five projects. Despite efforts to include all 10, some did not respond to repeated invitations. Ultimately, this phase provided a foundation for understanding the scope and characteristics of relevant cultural initiatives.
3.1.2. Semi-Structured Interviews
The second phase centered on semi-structured interviews with six representatives from five projects. These individuals—primarily PIs—were selected for their comprehensive understanding of project goals, methods, and outcomes. The interviews were conducted on Zoom, lasted 30 min each, and explored topics such as participant engagement, the use of technology, and sustainability challenges.
The interviewees were mid-career professionals (aged 30–50), predominantly from academic institutions or NGOs in Europe. In smaller projects, PIs often played dual roles as facilitators, while in larger initiatives (e.g., Project #5 in Turkey), facilitators were distinct team members who worked directly with participants. This distinction influenced the scope of insights gathered, with some relying on firsthand experiences and others on second-hand reports from facilitators.
The interviews were conducted following a semi-structured format. The interview guide covered a wide range of topics, such as participant roles, engagement activities, technology integration, and sustainability issues.
The guide began by focusing on the project itself and the role of the interviewee within it. We explored the methods and strategies used, the structure of the sessions, and the on-the-ground activities aimed at promoting inclusion. Participants were also asked about the feedback and expression of needs or concerns from the migrants, as well as any good practices established during the process.
The second part of the interview turned towards the role of technology, its integration into the project, and the facilitators’ familiarity with it. We probed whether technology was integrated at any point, whether participants used it independently, and whether there were any disconnects between the technology and practice.
The third part focused on challenges and frustrations. Participants were encouraged to discuss specific difficulties and frustrations they encountered, their sources, and the strategies they used to overcome them. This section allowed us to gather valuable data on the real-world issues faced in such projects.
Lastly, we discussed the sustainability of the projects, an issue often overlooked in research. We explored whether any co-designed artefacts had been independently maintained after the project, who was responsible for their maintenance, and any underlying motivations or concerns about the project’s sustainability.
Following the interviews, we performed a thematic qualitative analysis. This method was chosen because of its effectiveness in handling diverse narratives and perspectives. The transcripts were read and re-read to familiarize ourselves with the data, and initial codes were created. These codes were then grouped into broader themes, which were refined through a process of constant comparison.
3.2. Data Analysis
The interviews were analyzed thematically, focusing on recurring patterns and emerging insights. Themes included the role of facilitators, the impact of technology on participation, and strategies for addressing sustainability and power imbalances. Triangulation with project reports and publicly available documentation helped validate the findings and mitigate potential biases in the interviewee narratives.
While the reliance on PIs provided a valuable overview, it also introduced limitations. As individuals in leadership positions, their perspectives may emphasize successes over challenges and may not fully capture the lived experiences of participants. Follow-up questions aimed to uncover potential challenges and failures, providing a more balanced perspective.
3.3. Participatory Cultural Projects
The study examined five participatory cultural projects across Europe, all funded by H2020. These projects aimed to foster social inclusion and cultural exchange among migrant communities through various participatory activities. Examples include digital storytelling workshops using multimedia tools to bridge cultural gaps; co-designed museum exhibitions featuring cultural artifacts and personal stories from migrants; and music workshops led by Syrian facilitators to foster emotional expression and address language barriers.
Participants included refugees and asylum seekers from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia, ranging from young adults to middle-aged individuals. The project teams typically included researchers, cultural mediators, and local collaborators. Methods such as co-design, collaborative workshops, and community consultations empowered participants to play active roles in shaping project activities.
Some projects adapted to pandemic-related constraints by incorporating online tools. For example, while some used a hybrid model combining in-person and online workshops to increase accessibility, others leveraged social media to collect participant stories and share project outcomes.
Despite their successes, the projects faced challenges in sustaining participation and addressing the digital divide. These issues were particularly evident in larger initiatives, where resource-intensive solutions, such as providing devices and training, were difficult to scale.
The following Table 1 summarizes the key features of the analyzed projects, including their goals, target populations, duration, activities, use of technology, sustainability challenges, local collaborators, and notable practices.
4. Results
The interviews conducted presented a rich tapestry of experiences and perceptions of facilitators working on projects in a diverse range of global contexts. Several thematic findings emerged, creating a compelling narrative that provides insight into project implementation, challenges, and successes.
4.1. The Role of Facilitators in Building Trust and Understanding
Facilitators played a central role in the success of the participatory cultural projects analyzed in this study, although their roles and responsibilities varied depending on the specific context and needs of each initiative. In some cases, such as Project #1 in Greece and Project #5 in Turkey, facilitators were external professionals hired specifically to mediate interactions, bridge cultural and linguistic gaps, and foster trust among participants. These facilitators, often drawn from local communities, brought valuable cultural and linguistic alignment to their work, enabling them to build rapport and create inclusive environments. In other projects, such as Project #3 in Ireland, facilitation responsibilities were carried out by members of the project teams, including researchers and cultural mediators, who integrated facilitation into their broader roles.
Regardless of the structure or scale of the projects, facilitators consistently emerged as key to fostering trust and creating a safe space for participants. For example, facilitators in Project #1 in Greece helped bridge gaps between researchers and participants, cultivating mutual trust and open communication. Similarly, in Project #4 in Italy, facilitators demonstrated cultural sensitivity by adapting to the needs of participants, which encouraged them to express their thoughts more freely. In the UK, facilitators focused on managing group dynamics and ensuring participants felt heard and understood, while in Turkey, Syrian facilitators played a crucial role in bridging communication barriers and supporting Syrian students’ active engagement in project activities. Across these diverse settings, facilitators not only supported logistical coordination but also acted as cultural mediators who fostered meaningful connections between participants and project organizers.
The success of these projects highlights the nuanced skill set required for effective facilitation. Facilitators must possess cultural competence, empathy, adaptability, and the ability to manage complex interpersonal dynamics. Their ability to create a welcoming and inclusive environment while tailoring engagement strategies to meet the unique needs of participants was fundamental to achieving the projects’ goals. For instance, facilitators in Greece and Turkey demonstrated adaptability by bridging communication gaps and navigating cultural differences, while those in Italy and the UK cultivated culturally sensitive spaces that empowered participants to share their experiences openly.
However, the challenges of recruiting and training skilled facilitators remain significant. Effective facilitation requires a balance of interpersonal skills, cultural awareness, and the capacity to navigate power dynamics within participatory settings. Facilitators in Project #2 in Greece, for example, went beyond their coordination roles to build relationships with participants, fostering deeper engagement and collaboration. This underscores the importance of investing in the training and preparation of facilitators to ensure they are equipped to handle the multifaceted demands of their roles.
Overall, the findings underline the indispensable role of facilitators in participatory cultural projects. Their ability to bridge divides, foster trust, and create culturally responsive environments proved essential to the success of these initiatives. Regardless of the geographic or social context, facilitators acted as a critical link between participants and project organizers, ensuring smooth implementation and meaningful engagement. Their contributions highlight the need for future projects to prioritize the recruitment and development of facilitators as a cornerstone of participatory practices.
4.2. Power Imbalances and the Hesitation to Share Challenges
Power imbalances were a recurring challenge in the participatory cultural projects analyzed, though their nature varied depending on the context and dynamics of each initiative. Interviews with PIs revealed three primary sources of power imbalances: role-based hierarchies, gender and ethnicity, and the top-down design of many projects.
In some projects, such as Project #2 in Greece and Project #5 in Turkey, translators were integral to bridging linguistic divides, but their role inadvertently introduced additional layers of power dynamics. PIs noted that translators sometimes acted as gatekeepers, influencing the tone and content of participants’ contributions through their interpretations. In some instances, these interpretations reflected the translators’ own biases or assumptions, which unintentionally filtered or distorted the participants’ voices. This dynamic, while addressing language barriers, occasionally hindered direct communication and full understanding between participants and project organizers.
Gender and ethnicity also influenced power dynamics, particularly in Project #4 in Italy and the UK. Facilitators’ identities sometimes shaped how participants engaged in activities. Male participants from certain cultural backgrounds, for example, were hesitant to interact openly with female facilitators, whereas female participants felt more comfortable discussing sensitive topics with female facilitators who shared their cultural background. In Project #5 in Turkey, the reliance on male facilitators to interact with predominantly female Syrian refugees created discomfort during some activities due to cultural norms surrounding gender roles. This tension was later mitigated by introducing female facilitators, which significantly improved participant comfort, engagement, and openness.
Another source of power imbalance stemmed from the top-down structure of many projects. Participants often perceived project frameworks as predefined by funders or organizers, leaving little room for their input. In Project #1 in Greece, for instance, participants expressed reluctance to critique project activities, fearing that their feedback might not be valued or could lead to negative consequences. According to PIs, this hesitation reflected broader societal hierarchies that shaped participants’ behaviors and reinforced a sense of limited agency within the projects.
While these challenges were acknowledged and, in some cases, addressed by the project teams, it is important to note that the perspectives presented here are filtered through the lens of PIs, whose positions of authority may have shaped their interpretations. The lived experiences of participants, particularly regarding power imbalances, are absent from this analysis, highlighting a critical limitation of the study.
Interviewees across multiple projects emphasized the influence of power dynamics in participatory cultural initiatives. A project leader from Project #5 in Turkey described challenges in engagement due to cultural and gender imbalances, stating, ‘We noticed that female participants were more willing to engage when they saw facilitators who shared their backgrounds.’ Similarly, a facilitator from Project #2 in Greece highlighted the importance of neutral and trained translators, explaining, ‘Sometimes, the way translations were done affected how participants’ concerns were expressed.’ These insights suggest that intentional strategies—such as recruiting diverse facilitators, providing bias training, and fostering participant agency—can help mitigate power imbalances and create more equitable spaces for engagement.
4.3. Importance of Cultural Context and Participatory Activities in Fostering Engagement
Across all the projects studied, understanding the cultural context of participants and designing activities that aligned with their backgrounds and needs emerged as fundamental to fostering meaningful engagement. This cultural sensitivity not only deepened participants’ involvement but also strengthened their sense of connection and belonging within the projects.
In Project #1 in Greece, the team prioritized understanding the cultural background and needs of the migrant population to create engagement strategies that resonated with participants. By designing activities that were both relevant and appealing, the project ensured active involvement and a stronger sense of purpose among participants. Similarly, in Project #2, also in Greece, the acknowledgment and celebration of participants’ cultural identities played a crucial role. This culturally inclusive approach enhanced bonds between facilitators and participants, resulting in greater engagement and trust.
Cultural context was equally central in Project #4 in Italy, where activities were designed to reflect participants’ cultural narratives. This culturally informed approach allowed participants to connect more deeply with the project, fostering stronger engagement and encouraging them to share their experiences more openly. A similar strategy was employed in Project #3 in Ireland, where participatory activities focused on allowing participants to share their cultural experiences. This approach not only facilitated open discussions but also cultivated a sense of unity and mutual understanding among participants.
A facilitator from Project #4 in the UK described how ensuring cultural relevance in activities helped foster engagement: ‘We designed activities that allowed participants to express their own cultural traditions, which made them feel valued and included.’ This approach contributed to building trust and rapport within the group. Likewise, in Project #5 in Turkey, a project representative explained, ‘We learned that when activities reflected participants’ cultural backgrounds, they were much more willing to take part and share their experiences.’ These perspectives underscore the importance of culturally responsive design in participatory projects.
Across all these initiatives, the integration of cultural context into participatory activities emerged as a recurring and critical factor for success. Recognizing and valuing participants’ cultural identities not only enhanced their engagement but also fostered an environment of inclusivity and trust. For example, in Ireland, the inclusion of cultural histories and contexts created a sense of ownership among participants, which further deepened their involvement.
The intertwining of cultural sensitivity with participatory activity design also intersected with other key themes, such as reducing power imbalances and fostering trust. By understanding and respecting cultural contexts, project organizers were able to create more inclusive and effective participatory activities. These findings highlight the importance of designing activities that cater to the diverse cultural backgrounds of participants, presenting both an opportunity and a challenge for future projects aiming to achieve meaningful engagement.
4.4. The Role of Technology—A Mixed Bag
The role of technology in the analyzed projects emerged as both a facilitator and a challenge, with its effectiveness highly dependent on the context, implementation, and specific needs of participants. While technology often served as a valuable tool for enabling participation and disseminating information, it also presented barriers, particularly for marginalized groups or individuals with limited access to digital resources. Across all projects, participants consistently showed a preference for face-to-face communication, often seeking to validate information through trusted personal networks despite the availability of online tools. These findings underscore the need for a balanced approach, blending technology with personal interaction to foster trust and inclusivity.
In Project #1 in Greece, technology was primarily used for information dissemination and participant recruitment via email lists, social media groups, and digital newsletters. However, the project encountered challenges in reaching more marginalized groups, particularly those with limited digital literacy or restricted internet access. By contrast, Project #2 in Greece incorporated technology more extensively by integrating digital storytelling platforms, virtual discussion forums, and live-streamed interactive sessions into the participatory activities. This allowed participants to engage asynchronously and from remote locations but also highlighted the need for ongoing digital literacy support. As a facilitator from Project #2 noted, ‘We saw that while digital tools expanded accessibility, they also required significant support in terms of training and confidence-building for participants.’.
Although this expanded the scope of engagement, it also underscored the need for cautious implementation, as some participants faced barriers related to digital literacy or access.
Technology played a pivotal role in Project #4 in Italy, particularly in enabling remote collaboration and participation in workshops. However, over-reliance on digital tools occasionally hindered personal, face-to-face interactions, which were crucial for building trust and fostering deeper engagement. A similar dynamic was observed in Project #3 in Ireland, where social media platforms were used as primary communication tools. This project demonstrated the importance of understanding participants’ preferred communication methods to ensure effective and inclusive engagement.
In Project #4 in the UK, technology helped bridge communication gaps between facilitators and participants, creating more inclusive environments and supporting the project’s broader objectives. However, as in other initiatives, its implementation required careful consideration of participants’ access to and familiarity with digital tools. Meanwhile, in Project #5 in Turkey, technology proved to be a double-edged sword. While it facilitated information dissemination and expanded reach, it also highlighted the perceived impersonality of online communication. Participants often felt the need to validate information through personal connections, reflecting broader trust issues with digital platforms.
Overall, technology emerged as both an enabler and a barrier in these projects. On the one hand, it offered benefits such as increased accessibility, efficiency, and the ability to reach wider audiences. On the other hand, it introduced challenges related to cultural preferences, digital literacy, and the risk of excluding individuals without adequate access or knowledge of how to use digital tools. The findings highlight the need to balance technological solutions with traditional, personal modes of communication and engagement.
The role of technology in participatory cultural projects is inherently complex and context-dependent. While tools such as social media, digital storytelling platforms, and remote collaboration systems can enhance participation, they also have the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities or create new barriers. Projects like Project #5 in Turkey demonstrated the benefits of increased accessibility through technology, while initiatives such as Project #1 in Greece and Project #4 in the UK revealed how over-reliance on digital tools could alienate certain participants or magnify power imbalances.
Ultimately, the effective integration of technology requires careful planning and contextualization. By designing technological solutions that are adaptable, user-friendly, and sensitive to participants’ needs, projects can maximize the benefits of digital tools while minimizing their limitations. A balanced approach, combining technology with personal interaction, is essential to ensure that participatory activities remain inclusive, equitable, and impactful.
4.5. Challenges in Sustaining Participation
A recurring challenge across all projects was maintaining sustained engagement. Sustaining participant engagement emerged as a significant challenge across all the projects, with a variety of factors contributing to this issue. Many participants faced competing demands on their time, such as jobs, family responsibilities, and other personal commitments, making participation in project activities a lower priority. While some projects implemented strategies like financial compensation or long-term activities aimed at building stronger relationships, these measures were only partially effective, and participant attrition remained a persistent concern. This underscores the need for innovative approaches to address the challenges of sustaining engagement.
In Project #1 in Greece, facilitators highlighted the difficulties in maintaining consistent engagement due to participants’ conflicting schedules and other commitments. Balancing the diverse needs of participants was an ongoing challenge, as facilitators had to adapt to accommodate different priorities and circumstances. A similar dynamic was observed in Project #2 in Greece, where low attendance was a common issue despite the relevance and perceived benefits of the activities. Facilitators noted that participants often prioritized other responsibilities, such as work or family obligations, over their involvement in the project.
Cultural diversity added another layer of complexity in Project #4 in Italy, where facilitators faced the challenge of tailoring their approach to engage participants from varied cultural backgrounds effectively. This required continual adaptation, which, while valuable, was a resource-intensive and demanding process. A similar challenge arose in Project #3 in Ireland, where the heterogeneity of the participant group made it difficult to balance different needs, preferences, and availabilities. Facilitators in this project had to invest significant effort into ensuring that activities were inclusive and appealing to a diverse audience, yet sustaining consistent participation remained an uphill task.
In the UK, as part of Project #4, facilitators encountered retention issues despite initial enthusiasm from participants. External factors, such as changes in participants’ personal circumstances, often led to disengagement over time. Similarly, in Project #5 in Turkey, logistical and resource constraints, including transportation issues, posed significant barriers to sustained participation. Even when participants valued the activities, practical obstacles frequently limited their ability to engage fully. Efforts to address these barriers, such as organizing activities closer to participants’ locations, yielded some improvements but were not always sufficient to overcome the challenges entirely.
Across all projects, the interviews revealed that sustaining participation required a deep understanding of participants’ contexts, flexibility in project implementation, and proactive efforts to remove practical barriers. While financial incentives and adaptive approaches were helpful in some cases, they were not universal solutions. Facilitators’ ability to engage participants consistently depended heavily on their capacity to navigate these challenges and respond effectively to the specific circumstances of the communities they worked with.
The data on these challenges primarily reflect the perspectives of PIs, who reported their observations or relayed feedback from facilitators. For instance, in Project #2 in Greece, the PI described facilitators’ struggles to maintain attendance in workshops due to participants’ competing responsibilities. Similarly, in Project #5 in Turkey, the PI emphasized the efforts made to address logistical barriers, such as by holding activities in more accessible locations. However, it is important to note that these second-hand accounts may not fully capture the nuances of facilitators’ experiences or the complex realities of participants’ lives.
Furthermore, sustaining participation in cultural projects remains a multifaceted challenge that requires innovative and context-sensitive strategies. By addressing logistical, cultural, and practical barriers while understanding participants’ diverse needs, future projects can enhance their ability to foster long-term engagement and ensure meaningful participation.
4.6. Concerns About Sustainability
Sustainability emerged as a significant concern across all the projects analyzed, with facilitators and project coordinators highlighting ongoing challenges related to limited resources, stakeholder commitment, and the long-term viability of project outcomes. While some initiatives implemented measures to ensure continuity—such as creating online guidelines or open-access tools—these efforts often fell short of addressing the pressing need for sustained engagement and resources. The findings revealed an underlying tension between the goals of participatory cultural projects and the practical limitations that hinder their ability to achieve long-term impact.
A recurring theme across the interviews was the importance of involving local organizations and stakeholders early in the project design phase. For example, in Project #4 in the UK, collaboration with local cultural mediators helped ensure continuity by transferring ownership of activities to these entities after the project’s official end. This approach allowed for the activities to be maintained and adapted by the community, reducing reliance on external funding and resources.
Another strategy that contributed to sustainability was the use of modular frameworks. Projects that were designed with independent, scalable components—such as workshops or digital tools—demonstrated better long-term viability. In Project #1 in Greece, for instance, the adoption of an open-source digital storytelling platform enabled local communities to continue using and adapting the tool after the project concluded, ensuring the project’s relevance and utility over time.
Sharing decision-making authority and resources with participants and local stakeholders also proved to be a key factor in promoting sustainability. In Project #5 in Turkey, this co-ownership model encouraged community members to take an active role in maintaining and evolving project components. By empowering participants to adapt the initiative to their specific needs, the project reduced its dependency on external support and fostered a sense of ownership and responsibility within the community.
Building the digital literacy and organizational capacity of both participants and facilitators was another critical element in ensuring sustainability. In Project #3 in Ireland, training workshops not only equipped participants with the skills to engage meaningfully in project activities but also empowered local organizations to replicate and expand these activities independently. This dual focus on capacity building enhanced the project’s impact and longevity.
Technology played a dual role, acting as both a tool and a strategic enabler when carefully tailored to participant needs. For example, in Project #2 in Greece, the use of a hybrid model that combined digital and face-to-face approaches helped overcome accessibility barriers while maintaining a personal connection. This integration of technology ensured that the project remained inclusive and adaptable, supporting its long-term sustainability.
These findings highlight that achieving sustainability in participatory cultural projects requires more than resource allocation; it demands thoughtful, participatory design, flexibility in resource use, and a strong commitment to empowering local stakeholders. By involving communities in decision-making, providing tools that can be independently maintained, and building capacities, projects can create structures that endure beyond their initial funding period. Future research should continue to explore these strategies in diverse cultural and social contexts to refine and expand their applicability.
4.7. The Need for Innovative Approaches with Vulnerable Groups
The interviews highlighted a shared recognition of the need for innovative approaches when working with vulnerable groups, as traditional methods often failed to address their unique challenges effectively. Participants emphasized that strategies rooted in top-down information dissemination and rigid engagement frameworks were insufficient. Instead, fostering trust, understanding cultural contexts, and adopting creative, context-specific interventions emerged as essential components for meaningful participation.
In Project #5 in Turkey, facilitators found that conventional engagement methods, such as formal announcements on websites, were ineffective with refugee students. These methods were perceived as impersonal and lacked the trust needed to foster meaningful engagement. To address this, the project introduced participatory activities like music workshops, which successfully broke down language barriers and addressed power imbalances. By creating a more inclusive and comfortable environment, these workshops enhanced participants’ sense of belonging and trust.
Similarly, in Project #3 in Ireland, traditional workshops and focus groups failed to create an atmosphere conducive to open sharing. Participants were hesitant to discuss challenges in formal settings, prompting the team to adopt storytelling in informal and relaxed environments. This shift fostered greater openness and engagement, demonstrating the importance of adapting methods to the needs and comfort levels of participants.
Project #2 in Greece also underscored the importance of tailoring approaches to the realities of vulnerable groups, particularly in the context of technology use. While digital tools were initially considered a means to enhance engagement, they introduced challenges, such as participants’ discomfort with unfamiliar platforms and issues with internet connectivity. To overcome these barriers, facilitators adopted more accessible and familiar tools like WhatsApp for communication and information sharing. This simple yet effective adjustment allowed participants to engage more confidently and consistently.
These examples reveal the necessity of flexibility and creativity in designing participatory activities for vulnerable groups. Traditional methods often lack the adaptability required to address the diverse needs and circumstances of these communities. By embracing innovative and context-sensitive approaches, projects can create environments that are more inclusive and conducive to active participation.
The findings also demonstrate that the need for innovation extends across all dimensions of participatory cultural projects, intersecting with themes such as facilitation strategies, power dynamics, cultural sensitivity, technology use, and sustainability. For instance, the innovative approaches adopted in Ireland and Turkey not only enhanced engagement but also addressed issues of trust and power imbalances, highlighting the interconnected nature of these challenges.
Overall, the study underscores the pressing need for participatory activities that prioritize trust-building, cultural relevance, and adaptability when working with vulnerable groups. These findings point to the complex interplay of cultural, social, and logistical factors that influence the success of such projects. Future initiatives must anticipate these challenges and proactively develop strategies that cater to the unique needs of vulnerable communities, ensuring that participatory activities remain inclusive, effective, and responsive to the lived realities of their participants.
5. Discussion
This study confirms and expands on existing research about participatory cultural projects, particularly those involving migrant communities. While previous studies have emphasized the importance of facilitators, power dynamics, and sustainability (e.g., [4,5]), our findings provide new insights into how these elements interact in practice. Among these, the role of facilitators as cultural mediators emerged as particularly significant. In Projects #1 and #5, for example, facilitators went beyond fostering trust to actively bridge cultural and linguistic divides, ensuring participants felt heard and understood. This underscores the need for facilitators to possess not only communication skills but also adaptability and cultural awareness—qualities that are essential for working with diverse migrant groups.
The integration of technology alongside personal interaction also proved to be a key theme. While earlier research has highlighted the role of technology in participatory projects [20], our findings suggest that technology alone is insufficient. In Greece and the UK, facilitators observed that digital tools expanded outreach but were unable to replace the need for face-to-face interactions. Participants often required personal engagement to feel validated and build trust. These findings highlight the importance of striking a balance: using technology to enhance accessibility and efficiency while maintaining a central focus on human connection.
Power imbalances were another critical theme, but our study moves beyond simply identifying these dynamics to exploring practical ways to address them. Strategies such as co-designing projects with participants and incorporating shared decision-making frameworks proved effective, particularly when tailored to the unique needs of migrant communities. These approaches demonstrated that it is possible to reduce hierarchical structures and create more inclusive spaces for meaningful participation.
Flexibility in responding to socio-cultural contexts was also essential. A one-size-fits-all approach was rarely effective, as each community’s cultural nuances shaped the success of the projects. Projects that adapted their frameworks to the specific needs of their participants—whether through culturally relevant activities, inclusive facilitation strategies, or tailored use of technology—were better able to foster genuine inclusion and engagement. This adaptability proved to be not just beneficial but essential in creating impactful and sustainable participatory initiatives.
However, the study also has limitations. Most of the data were derived from project leaders whose perspectives may be influenced by their positions of authority. This reliance risks overlooking the lived experiences and nuanced perspectives of participants, which are critical to understanding how power dynamics operate. Future research should prioritize the voices of participants to ensure a more balanced and inclusive understanding of participatory cultural projects.
While technology was often a useful enabler, it also posed challenges. For instance, Project #2 successfully integrated online and in-person workshops to improve accessibility, but the digital divide and low digital literacy in some communities created barriers. Project #5 attempted to address these issues by providing devices and mobile data to participants, but such efforts were resource-intensive and challenging to scale. These findings highlight the need for low-barrier technologies and ongoing support, such as digital literacy training and accessible tools, to ensure inclusivity and equal participation.
In conclusion, this study underscores the interconnected nature of facilitation, power dynamics, cultural responsiveness, and technology in participatory cultural projects. By addressing these elements with intentionality and adaptability, future initiatives can better serve diverse communities and foster meaningful engagement. Continued exploration of these themes, particularly from participants’ perspectives, will be critical to refining and improving the design and implementation of participatory cultural initiatives.
6. Contributions to Communication Sciences
This study contributes significantly to the field of Communication Sciences by offering nuanced insights into the intersection of human facilitation, technology, and participatory practices in cultural projects focused on migrant communities. It highlights how culturally sensitive communication strategies can foster inclusion, address the digital divide, and sustain long-term community engagement. By analyzing initiatives such as Project #1 and Project #2 in Greece, Project #4 in Italy, and Project #5 in Turkey, the research underscores the importance of tailoring communication tools and practices to the specific cultural and social contexts of the communities involved.
The findings reveal the complex dynamics between facilitators and technology, showcasing how participatory initiatives can bridge cultural and linguistic divides. For instance, Project #1 in Greece demonstrated the impact of an online storytelling platform that allowed participants to share their narratives through multimedia formats. This approach not only fostered intercultural dialogue but also strengthened community bonds. Such examples emphasize the importance of designing communication platforms that are flexible, inclusive, and culturally sensitive, ensuring they accommodate diverse expressions and needs.
The research also addresses the persistent challenge of the digital divide, particularly among marginalized migrant communities. Limited access to technology and low levels of digital literacy often impede participation, as seen in Projects #1 in Greece and #4 in the UK. However, the implementation of digital literacy workshops in the UK demonstrated how pairing accessible technologies with tailored educational resources can empower participants and improve engagement. These findings underline the importance of designing low-barrier technological solutions to ensure equitable opportunities for cultural engagement.
Another critical contribution of this study is its exploration of strategies to enhance community engagement. In Project #5 in Turkey, the innovative use of an interactive map invited participants to share personal narratives and cultural experiences, creating a dynamic virtual space for storytelling. This participatory approach not only expanded the project’s reach but also fostered a strong sense of ownership and connection among participants. Such strategies illustrate how thoughtful communication design can stimulate meaningful and sustained involvement in cultural initiatives.
Cultural sensitivity emerged as a cornerstone of effective communication practices. Project #4 in Italy exemplified this through its use of digital storytelling tools that incorporated cultural motifs and symbols, enabling participants to connect deeply with the project and share their heritage in ways that reflected both individual and communal identities. Facilitators reported that these culturally attuned approaches enhanced engagement and strengthened the emotional resonance of the participatory activities, highlighting the value of aligning communication strategies with the cultural realities of participants.
Sustainability also emerged as a recurring theme, with findings from Project #2 in Greece and Project #4 in Italy emphasizing the need for adaptable communication frameworks that evolve with changing community needs. Modular designs, such as those employed in these projects, allowed for incremental updates and resource-efficient implementation, ensuring the longevity and relevance of project activities. By prioritizing sustainability, practitioners can create participatory cultural initiatives that maintain their impact over time, even as resources fluctuate or community contexts shift.
In summary, this research advances Communication Sciences by illustrating how human-centered, culturally sensitive approaches can address the multifaceted challenges of participatory cultural projects. By bridging gaps in access to technology, fostering cultural understanding, and promoting sustainability, the study provides a framework for creating more inclusive and impactful initiatives. These findings offer actionable insights for both researchers and practitioners, underscoring the importance of adaptive, innovative, and community-driven strategies in shaping the future of participatory communication practices.
7. Conclusions
This study explored participatory activities in European cultural projects engaging migrant communities, shedding light on the nuanced interplay of facilitators, technology, and sustained engagement. It highlights the indispensable role of facilitators in building trust and understanding—essential for the success of these initiatives—while extending existing literature by showcasing innovative and adaptive approaches to participatory practices. Projects such as #1, #2, #3, and #4 illustrate the need to tailor participatory initiatives to the unique needs and contexts of migrant communities, emphasizing cultural sensitivity, flexible frameworks, and local collaboration.
The research underscores the dual role of technology as a facilitator of accessibility and participation and as a potential barrier due to gaps in digital literacy and trust. For instance, while technology expanded outreach in Greece and the UK, participants often preferred face-to-face interactions to validate information. This reinforces the importance of balanced approaches that integrate digital tools without overshadowing personal communication. Future initiatives should prioritize user-friendly, adaptable technologies co-designed with participants, as evidenced by Project #4, to enhance usability and foster ownership.
Power dynamics emerged as a recurring theme, managed intricately by facilitators who navigated cultural and social complexities. To mitigate these imbalances, future projects should emphasize diverse, culturally aligned facilitation teams, use neutral translators, and actively involve participants in co-designing project frameworks. Additionally, participatory action research or peer-led interviews can amplify participant voices, offering deeper insights into the lived experiences of target communities.
A key limitation of this study is its reliance on data from PIs and project representatives, which may not fully capture participants’ perspectives. While these accounts provided valuable structural and operational insights, future research should center on participants’ voices to better understand the impacts and challenges of these initiatives. Similarly, engaging directly with facilitators could enrich the understanding of their roles and the complexities they navigate.
Despite these limitations, this study contributes actionable insights into participatory cultural practices and their potential to foster inclusion and cultural exchange. By aligning with the journal’s commitment to addressing societal challenges through interdisciplinary approaches, it highlights how communication frameworks can drive inclusion and integration. This dialogue is critical as we continue to explore the transformative potential of participatory methods in addressing complex societal issues.
Conceptualization, V.C.; Methodology, V.C.; Formal analysis, V.C.; Investigation, V.C.; Data curation, V.C.; Writing—original draft, V.C.; Writing—review & editing, V.C.; Funding acquisition, P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
According to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, specifically Articles 5, 6, and 9, formal ethics review may not be required for studies that do not involve sensitive data, provided that informed consent is clearly obtained and the data collection is minimal and poses low risk. Since our study does not deal with sensitive personal data and participants provided explicit consent, it qualifies for this exemption.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author Pedro Campos was employed by the company Wowsystems Informática Lda. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Summary of participatory cultural projects.
| No. | Country | Goal | Target | Duration | Key | Use of | Sustainability Challenges | Local Collaborators | Notable Practices |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Greece | Bridging cultural gaps through | Refugees from Syria (18–30) | 2018–2021 | Digital | Multimedia tools for | Lack of | Partnered with NGOs for | Local NGOs provided partial support |
| #2 | Greece | Enhancing | Mixed migrant groups (20–50) | 2019–2022 | Hybrid online/in-person workshops | Online | Internet access issues | Cultural | Training |
| #3 | Ireland | Promoting | Refugees and asylum seekers | 2020–2021 | Storytelling sessions and cultural discussions | Social media for story | Limited follow-up with | Local NGO involvement | Use of |
| #4 | Italy and UK | Empowering | Migrants from Africa and the | 2017–2020 | Museum exhibits | Online survey tools, digital exhibit | Transfer of ownership to museums failed | Local | Collaboration with museum |
| #5 | Turkey | Using arts for | Syrian | 2018–2022 | Music workshops and | Social media and video documentation | Logistical | Syrian | Embedding activities |
1. Castles, S. Twenty-First-Century Migration as a Challenge to Sociology. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud.; 2007; 33, pp. 351-371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691830701234491]
2. Vertovec, S. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethn. Racial Stud.; 2007; 30, pp. 1024-1054. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465]
3. Sandell, R. Museums as Agents of Social Inclusion. Mus. Manag. Curatorship; 1998; 17, pp. 401-418. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647779800401704]
4. Sandell, R. Social Inclusion, the Museum and the Dynamics of Sectoral Change. Mus. Soc.; 2003; 1, pp. 45-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29311/mas.v1i1.13]
5. Almohamed, A.; Vyas, D. Rebuilding Social Capital in Refugees and Asylum Seekers. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.; 2019; 26, pp. 41:1-41:30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3364996]
6. Cesário, V.; Acedo, A.; Nunes, N.; Nisi, V. Promoting Social Inclusion Around Cultural Heritage Through Collaborative Digital Storytelling. Proceedings of the International Conference on ArtsIT, Interactivity and Game Creation; Faro, Portugal, 21–22 November 2022; Wölfel, M.; Bernhardt, J.; Thiel, S. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 248-260.
7. Fonseca, X.; Lukosch, S.; Brazier, F. Social cohesion revisited: A new definition and how to characterize it. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res.; 2019; 32, pp. 231-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480]
8. Keles, S.; Munthe, E.; Ruud, E. A systematic review of interventions promoting social inclusion of immigrant and ethnic minority preschool children. Int. J. Incl. Educ.; 2021; 28, pp. 924-939. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1979670]
9. Merli, P. Evaluating the social impact of participation in arts activities. Int. J. Cult. Policy; 2002; 8, pp. 107-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286630290032477]
10. Cesário, V.; Matos, S.; Radeta, M.; Nisi, V. Designing Interactive Technologies for Interpretive Exhibitions: Enabling Teen Participation Through User-Driven Innovation. Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT 2017: 16th IFIP TC 13 International Conference; Mumbai, India, 25–29 September 2017; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 232-241.
11. Cesário, V.; Nisi, V. A co-design method for museums to engage migrant communities with cultural heritage. Proceedings of the Design Research Society (DRS2022); Bilbao, Spain, 25 June–3 July 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.523]
12. Cesário, V.; Nisi, V. Designing with teenagers: A teenage perspective on enhancing mobile museum experiences. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact.; 2022; 33, 100454. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100454]
13. Del Gaudio, C.; Franzato, C.; de Oliveira, A.J. Sharing design agency with local partners in participatory design. Int. J. Des.; 2016; 10, pp. 53-64.
14. Hahm, H.; Lee, J.; Jeong, S.; Oh, S.; Park, S.C. A Digital Solution and Challenges in the Safeguarding Practices of Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Case of “ichngo.net” Platform. Proceedings of the 2020 2nd Asia Pacific Information Technology Conference; Bali Island, Indonesia, 17–19 January 2020; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 94-99.
15. Sousa, D.; Olim, L. Learning Experiences of a Participatory Approach to Educating for Sustainable Development in a South African Higher Education Institution Yielding Social Learning Indicators. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13063210]
16. Portnoi, L.M. Theorizing Globalization. Policy Borrowing and Reform in Education: Globalized Processes and Local Contexts; Portnoi, L.M. Palgrave Macmillan US: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 57-86. ISBN 978-1-137-53024-0
17. Bobeth, J.; Schreitter, S.; Schmehl, S.; Deutsch, S.; Tscheligi, M. User-Centered Design between Cultures: Designing for and with Immigrants. Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT 2013; Cape Town, South Africa, 2–6 September 2013; Kotzé, P.; Marsden, G.; Lindgaard, G.; Wesson, J.; Winckler, M. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 713-720.
18. Krüger, M.; Weibert, A.; Leal, D.d.C.; Randall, D.; Wulf, V. It Takes More Than One Hand to Clap: On the Role of ‘Care’ in Maintaining Design Results. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Yokohama, Japan, 8–13 May 2021; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 1-14.
19. Davis, H.; Hespanhol, L.; Farmer, J.; Fredericks, J.; Caldwell, G.A.; Hoggenmueller, M. Designing Participation for the Digital Fringe. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies; Troyes, France, 26–30 June 2017; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 321-324.
20. Green, D.P.; Bowen, S.; Hook, J.; Wright, P. Enabling Polyvocality in Interactive Documentaries through “Structural Participation”. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 6317-6329.
21. Taylor, N.; Cheverst, K.; Wright, P.; Olivier, P. Leaving the wild: Lessons from community technology handovers. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1549-1558.
22. Bannon, L. Reimagining HCI: Toward a more human-centered perspective. Interactions; 2011; 18, pp. 50-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978833]
23. Fischer, G. Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. Interactions; 2011; 18, pp. 42-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1962438.1962450]
24. Alvarado Garcia, A.; Young, A.L.; Dombrowski, L. On Making Data Actionable: How Activists Use Imperfect Data to Foster Social Change for Human Rights Violations in Mexico. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.; 2017; 1, pp. 19:1-19:19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3134654]
25. Fung, A. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Adm. Rev.; 2006; 66, pp. 66-75.
26. Cornish, F.; Breton, N.; Moreno-Tabarez, U.; Delgado, J.; Rua, M.; de-Graft Aikins, A.; Hodgetts, D. Participatory action research. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim.; 2023; 3, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.