Introduction

Action research for territorial development (ARTD) (Karlsen and Larrea 2014) draws substantial inspiration from the pioneering concepts of co-generative learning (Elden and Levin 1991) and co-generation of knowledge (Greenwood and Levin 2007). Morten Levin’s innovative co-generative action research model has been pivotal in shaping ARTD, emphasizing collaborative, inclusive, and participatory approaches to knowledge creation and learning. The participatory approach is a foundational element in Levin’s model, ensuring that learning, knowledge development, and collaborative action among actors remain central. This participatory approach is important for fostering an environment where diverse stakeholders can jointly address complex regional issues, reflecting the enduring legacy of Morten Levin’s contributions to action research. For more information about the connection between ARTD and Levin’s work, see the article by Larrea et al. in this special issue.

ARTD shares the foundation of action research as defined and described in the co-generative action research model by Greenwood and Levin (2007). Both approaches engage participants in iterative cycles of action and reflection to generate knowledge and initiate change, aiming to improve the participants’ situations. However, adapting the co-generative model, originally developed within the context of workplace development, to the territorial (regional) level required some modifications.

First, ARTD has a territorial/regional approach, involving various interdependent actors in the territory and beyond. Addressing regional challenges, which are issues common to multiple actors within a region, requires these actors to collaborate and co-generate knowledge within the regional agora. The regional agora, conceptualized as the collaborative meeting place between universities and regional actors, embodies the spirit of co-generation central to Levin’s model (Karlsen and Larrea 2014). The concepts territory and region will be used interchangeably in the article.

Second, the regional approach necessitated the introduction of the concept of regional complexity The concept refers to the intricate interplay of numerous actors operating at various geographical levels, where no single actor (whether an individual or organization) possesses the requisite resources or power to independently implement the necessary changes. The actors therefore have to collaborate in order to try to solve the challenge (Karlsen and Larrea 2014).

Third, regional development refers to the process of mobilizing, facilitating, and encouraging the participation of various actors, both public and private, such as businesses, universities, and regional governments. The aim of this process is to develop strategies and action plans that enhance economic well-being and quality of life within a specific geographical area. Actors from outside the actual region may also participate due to their valuable knowledge and resources, playing an important role in achieving the development goals. For the purposes of this paper, the following terms will be used as defined:

  • Regional Actors: Organizations operating in the region that have a direct interest in regional development, such as municipalities, firms, cluster organizations, universities, and research institutions.

  • Practitioners: Professionals representing regional actors who are engaged in implementing and managing development initiatives in the region.

A fourth, significant evolution of Levin’s co-generative model was the shift from using “communication arenas” to “democratic dialogue” in ARTD by Karlsen and Larrea (2014). This is a concept influenced by the work of another prominent action researcher, Gustavsen (1992), who, like Levin, focused on workplace development. Dialogue refers to conversations or discussions between equal partners, characterized by openness, a willingness to listen, and a desire to understand each other’s arguments. Democratic dialogue emphasizes inclusive, egalitarian communication processes that enhance mutual understanding and collective decision-making. The best solutions are likely to emerge from open discussions among those involved. Gustavsen (1992) combines communication theory with the fundamental principles of democracy, seeing all participants as having equal rights, inspired by the theories of Habermas (1987). In practice, democratic dialogue has been implemented through dialogue conferences, where participants are trained in democratic procedures while discussing visions and plans. These conferences follow specific criteria to ensure democratic participation (Gustavsen 1992).

This article reflects on co-generative learning processes involving master’s students as action researchers in territorial development, in collaboration with regional actors in the Agder region of Norway. The course is inspired by experiences from ARTD working with policymakers in the Basque Country (see the article by Larrea et al. in this special issue) and by Levin’s approach, where PhD students worked directly with companies (Greenwood and Levin 2007). The key difference between Levin’s teaching experience and the course described in this article is that the students are master’s students working with regional actors, focusing on regional development.

Through the course, students gain insight into how the municipal sector engages in industrial and territorial development and innovation by collaborating on real challenges with those responsible for business development in the municipality. These real challenges are not constructed cases on campus; instead, they are actual territorial development issues that the municipalities are currently working on and willing to share with the students. The municipalities must set aside time and resources to collaborate with the students throughout the entire semester. The students do not submit a proposed solution to the municipalities but, through the co-generation process, provide input on how the municipalities can continue to work on the challenge.

Unlike narratives of successful, happy family stories, the analysis in the spirit of Levin’s legacy critically examines the contingencies, defects, and exhilarations of co-generation processes (Greenwood and Levin 2007, p. 113). The research questions are:

  • How can participation in co-generative learning processes at the territorial level enhance students’ capacity for critical reflection?

  • How does participation in co-generative learning processes at the territorial level influence the facilitation of complex territorial development processes?

Presentation of the Case, Context and Data

Context

The case is set at the University of Agder, campus Grimstad, which has about 3,500 students. Campus Grimstad is in the eastern part of the Agder region. University of Agder has two campuses with about 14,000 students and the Agder region is home to 316,000 inhabitants.Footnote 1 Over the past 30 years, the University of Agder’s strategic approach has evolved significantly, transitioning from an isolated “ivory tower” stance to actively collaborating with regional actors. This transformation began with the institution’s transition from a university college to a university at the turn of the millennium. A key milestone in this evolution was the strategic plan for 2016–2020 (Universitetet i Agder 2016), which adopted “Co-creation of knowledge” as its vision, placing a stronger emphasis on collaboration with regional actors than previous plans (Karlsen and Pinheiro 2022).

Case

The case focuses on the course “Innovation in the Public Sector,” a 7.5-credit elective course offered in the third semester of the Master’s programs “Knowledge Development and Innovation” and “Industrial Economy and Technology Management” at the School of Business and Law at the University of Agder. At the Business School, students typically take four courses each semester, and a 7.5-credit course represents one-eighth of a full academic year’s workload. Introduced in 2017, the course has mainly partnered with public sector organizations, particularly municipalities. An exception occurred in 2020, when Agder County Council served as the collaborating entity.

In recent years, Østre Agder Næringsforum, a regional agency for business development, has become the permanent partner. Østre Agder Næringsforum serves as an arena for exchanging experience and knowledge. The agency represents eight municipalities (Grimstad, Froland, Arendal, Vegårshei, Åmli, Tvedestrand, Risør, and Gjerstad). The Østre Agder region has a population of approximately 95,000, constituting about 30% of the total population in Agder. Arendal and Grimstad alone account for around 73% of the population in Østre Agder, highlighting a high concentration of people, significant economic activity, infrastructure, and services.

The course themes have varied each year based on the interests and needs of the regional actors and their relevance to the course’s theme (see Table 1).

Table 1 Collaboration actors and themes of the course “Innovation in the Public Sector”
Full size table

The course is time-consuming and requires long-term planning. To structure the dialogue throughout the year with our regional actors, a co-generation year wheel has been developed, consisting of the following phases:

  • Winter: Evaluation of the previous year’s process with regional actors.

  • Spring: Discussion of potential themes and selection of a concrete theme for the year in collaboration with regional actors, ensuring alignment with the study programs.

  • Before summer holiday: Creation of a comprehensive participation plan in collaboration with regional actors, detailing the participants, scheduling of activities, and the types of activities to be conducted.

  • Autumn: The co-generation process between students and regional actors.

What distinguishes this course from others offered in the two master’s programs is its foundation in action research methodology (Greenwood and Levin 2007; Reason and Bradbury 2008), and ARTD (Karlsen and Larrea 2014). The course is designed to emphasize three main elements: teaching, co-generation with regional actors and reflection about the process. The course description states that students are expected to collaborate and co-generate new knowledge together with regional actors. The teaching component introduces key concepts in the subject, such as complexity (Karlsen and Larrea 2014), knowledge co-generation (Greenwood and Levin 2007; Karlsen and Larrea 2014), democratic dialogue (Gustavsen 1992), and conflict (Karlsen and Larrea 2012).

It also provides guidance on how students should document the collaboration and co-generation process they participate in (Nadin and Cassel 2006). Students are trained to keep a research diary where they learn to identify, describe, analyze, and reflect on relevant events and behaviours in writing, using theoretical perspectives. Given this, it is up to the students to decide what to focus on in their diaries, allowing them to document what they find most relevant and impactful. The research diary serves as a key tool in the design of the written examination response, which includes direct quotations and theoretically informed reflections from the diary to support the argument.

Students collaborate with their peers in groups from 4 to 6. Attendance is mandatory for taking the course exam, a requirement that has ensured high participation levels despite some student complaints about its stringency. The rationale for compulsory attendance is that a successful co-generation process necessitates regular meetings between students and practitioners over an extended period. The number of students taking the course has varied between 8 and 35.

Students have an individual written exam in the middle of the semester, in addition to an oral group exam at the end of the semester. Written reflection is important as it allows students to engage in deeper contemplation of the material, facilitating a more thorough understanding and critical analysis. The process of writing encourages students to organize their thoughts, articulate their insights, and reflect on their learning experiences in a structured manner, which often leads to more profound and lasting comprehension compared to oral reflection alone. It is important to distinguish between reflection and critical reflection, although the terms are often used interchangeably (Askeland 2006). Reflection is not necessarily critical (Carr and Kemmis 1986). For reflection to be considered critical, it must be grounded in a methodological and theoretical framework, rather than simply based on opinion or belief. Additionally, it must critically evaluate existing professional understanding in order to develop new knowledge (Carr and Kemmis 1986). These criteria emphasise the importance of having a sound methodological and theoretical basis for understanding and critically reflecting on evidence from practice.

There are various “learning arenas” within the course, each with a specific purpose, types of actors involved, and the nature of the activities. The different learning arenas show the different contexts in which students are engaged. Each arena offers unique opportunities for collaboration and practical application of theoretical concepts. The purpose of detailing these arenas is to illustrate how different settings contribute to students’ learning experiences and outcomes. Understanding the specific purposes and activities of each arena allows us to identify the strengths and challenges of the co-generative learning process, enabling us to make informed improvements to the course design and delivery. These activities may occur as single, one-off events or continuously throughout the semester The arenas are:

  • Teaching: This arena involves both students and teachers in an intensive teaching phase during the second week of the semester, followed by continuous learning sessions. This structure ensures that a solid grounding in key concepts is established early on and built upon throughout the semester.

  • Group work: This learning arena is designed for students to self-organize and manage their group work continuously throughout the semester. Each week, the group prepares, plans, and takes necessary actions to ensure their progress and success. The focus is based on collaboration, co-generation, and peer learning.

    • Collaboration: Students independently organize and coordinate their efforts on the project.

    • Co-generation: Students collectively create and develop ideas for the next steps in the process through self-initiated planning and actions.

    • Peer Learning: Students learn from each other’s experiences and insights through self-directed group activities.

  • Guidance through dialogue: There are weekly sessions where the groups of students receive ongoing guidance and support from tutors. This ongoing dialogue helps the groups stay on track with their projects and facilitates regular feedback.

  • Interview: A single event, where the groups have interview with regional practitioners.

  • Regional co-generation: In this arena, there is an ongoing activity involving students, faculty, and a core group of four regional practitioners who meet every third week. These sessions focus on co-generation, drawing on the expertise and experience of both academics and practitioners. The regularity of these meetings enables the development of iterative reflection and action cycles, which are fundamental components of action research.

  • Regional co-generation workshop: A single event, a workshop involving students, faculty and regional practitioners. The number of participants in this arena has varied from 30 to 70. This workshop is designed to foster extensive collaboration and knowledge sharing among a broad group of regional actors.

  • Oral group exam: A single event where student groups present their findings and recommendations to the same regional actors who participated in the workshop, as well as to other invited guests. This presentation serves as a practical application of their learning and provides actionable insights to the municipalities.

Data

Data from the knowledge co-generation process is based on two students’ exam answers from 2018 to 2022, with documented observations and reflections from their research diaries. I have chosen to focus on two papers to allow for in-depth exploration and to trace the students’ reflections from introduction to conclusion. This approach provides an opportunity to examine the students’ thoughts, knowledge, and reflections in greater detail.

Bradbury et al. (2019) emphasize the importance of reflexivity in action research, encouraging researchers to take a personal, involved, and self-critical stance. This approach ensures that reflections are grounded in both personal and theoretical insights, making the generated knowledge meaningful and applicable. To validate the findings, I have also used my own notes from my research diary. I have written about the course in earlier publications with other research questions and data from the case (see Karlsen 2020a, b; Karlsen and Larrea 2019). In the following sections, glimpses from the co-generation process will be presented through the students’ exam papers.

Glimpses from the Co-Generation Process

The complexity of involving students from various master programs and regional practitioners from diverse regional actors makes co-generative learning within a 7.5-credit course particularly challenging. From the outset in 2017, we knew that 7.5 credits would be insufficient, but within the Business School system, 7.5 credits is a “sacred” standard to which we had to adapt, and there was no possibility of expanding to a 15-credit course. We therefore anticipated that students would start to criticize the workload. Our argument was that the workload would even out over the course of the semester after an intense start. The students accepted this argument, but it has been a recurring theme for as long as the course has been organized. This suggests that while the argument was accepted on a theoretical level, the practical experience of the students continues to reveal a disconnect between the course demands and the credit allocation.

From Theory to Practice: Balancing Complexity and Clarity in Action

Organizing a course that combined students from various programs and regional practitioners who were unfamiliar with each other, while addressing the regional challenge and starting a co-generation process is undeniably difficult. This difficulty was most pronounced in the regional co-generation arena, in the regular meeting with regional practitioners. In the second year (2018), students described the course as being filled with ambiguities, chaos, and confusion (Karlsen 2020a). In the exam paper one student described the co-generation process in this way:

The impression was that the student group in particular initially felt a lot of frustration because the process was open and unclear, and no one knew how the process would unfold. As the students had rarely participated in similar processes beforehand, many probably entered the course with an expectation of a clear programme, as their previous experience of the course would indicate. In other words, there was dissonance between the students’ expectations and reality, which is the basis for tension and conflict. Throughout the process, the students had many discussions with the other co-generation practitioners, but also among themselves. … It was particularly challenging to balance the relationship between being a facilitator and a student bringing new perspectives. (Students reflection in exam paper 2018.).

The first part of the quote highlights the gap between what the students expected and what they encountered, which became a source of discomfort and challenge for them. This illustrates the challenges of working with real-life complexity, which the student interpreted as ambiguity and chaos. In my own research diary, I considered these experiences as integral aspects of complexity (Karlsen 2020a). There is a significant difference between learning about complexity theoretically and experiencing it in practice, which makes real-life navigation particularly challenging. This challenge is compounded by the fact that much of students’ prior education emphasizes clear-cut answers and passing tests, often ignoring ambiguity and reflexiveness on their roles. The quote from the student demonstrates the importance of balancing exposure to real-life complexity with providing adequate support and clarity to facilitate the learning process gradually.

Ambiguity, chaos, and confusion are often part of complex processes, making it challenging to distinguish between them when they occur simultaneously. In real-life cases, the unfolding of complexity can manifest in various forms, sometimes appearing as ambiguity, chaos, or confusion, making it difficult to identify and manage. Complexity in action is dynamic and can take on different appearances or “guises” as it progresses, highlighting the fluid and often unpredictable nature of real-life co-generation processes. Understanding complexity in real-life settings is not straightforward or easily achieved.

The last part of the quote about the role as a “facilitator and a student” highlights the potential confusion and difficulty in balancing these dual responsibilities. We acknowledged that we might have placed too much responsibility on the students and been unclear about their role in the regional co-generation arena. As facilitators, they were expected to guide discussions and processes effectively. However, as students, they were also expected to bring fresh ideas and viewpoints to the table. Managing these responsibilities was challenging, as each role required different approaches and knowledge. This led to my stepping in as the facilitator, which reduced tension and initiated the co-generation process.

In the years since, we have attempted to address the issue of complexity and facilitation by providing clear information before the course begins, while acknowledging that there might still be some comments about ambiguity and chaos once the course starts.

Reflection on-Action about Co-Generation and Complexity

In an exam paper from 2022, a student reflected on the difference in information gathering during an interview and a workshop. This year the theme was a to contribute with input to a process for designing a communication strategy for Østre Agder Næringsforum:

It was interesting to see that we received completely different answers and attitudes to the questions raised during the workshop than the questions we asked during the interviews during the municipal visit. The same representatives who expressed challenges during the municipality visit conveyed completely different thoughts and opinions in plenary. It quickly became clear that they did not want to express the same challenges when the other municipalities were also present. When the participants were asked to jointly reflect/discuss a number of questions, we received answers such as:

We have never experienced conflicts in the Østre Agder Næringsforum.

The co-operation works well, and we feel that there is a lot of co-generation in the Næringsforum.

The student continues the reflection. Some participants had to leave after the first part of the workshop. New groups were created with fewer participants. In this part of the workshop, the students wrote that they received more open and honest answers:

“We asked again if they felt that co-generation had actually taken place in the Østre Agder Næringsforum, and received answers like: “

“Østre Agder Næringsforum is a place for coffee and chat, not co-generation.“

“I have never experienced co-generation in the Østre Agder Næringsforum. Right now, it’s a waste of time. If we’re just going to update each other, we could send out a newsletter instead.“

“During the workshop, it became apparent that there is an implicit conflict that all parties are trying to hide. “

The student described this as an implicit conflict, referring to Karlsen and Larrea (2012), and discussed how to resolve such a conflict. The implicit conflict in Østre Agder is complex and multifaceted. This complexity arises from the fact that Østre Agder Næringsforum is not a formal decision-making body, but rather an advisory and coordinating body focusing on economic and social development in the region’s eight municipalities. As such, it cannot make decisions that have consequences for the individual municipalities. Significant differences in priorities, needs, or perspectives between the municipalities can lead to tensions, slowing down decision-making processes. Balancing the different interests of all municipalities often requires compromises that may not fully satisfy all parties, complicating governance and policy implementation.

As mentioned in the introduction, the students’ responsibility was not to come up with solutions to the conflict but to make it explicit. Their task was to illustrate the complexities involved and demonstrate how Østre Agder Næringsforum could continue working towards finding solutions.

Since the written individual exam preceded the oral group exam, the students continued the co-generation process in the regional co-generation arena. Several of the exam papers had similar observations, and two of the five student groups decided to use this finding in their oral exam, which took place off-campus. All workshop participants, including mayors from the municipalities, were invited to the presentation. About 30 attendees showed up, including the vice rector responsible for education at the University of Agder. The students presented their critiques, which were followed by comments and questions from the audience.

The exam presentations were not intended as a formal decision-making arena, but they provided a meaningful conclusion to their action research learning process. By making the conflict explicit and reflecting on potential resolutions with the stakeholders present, the students were able to link their learning to action in the territorial development context. It was now up to the municipalities to take the process further and implement the necessary changes.

Discussion

The glimpses demonstrates an understanding and application of theory to highlight real challenges in co-generation processes seen from the approach of students. The aim of the discussion is to answer the research questions formulated in the introduction. The discussion is structured under three headings to highlight key aspects of the co-generation process in educational and territorial development contexts: Bildung and interiority in action research, complexity and facilitation, and democratic dialogue in regional workshops.

Bildung and Interiority in Action Research

The quotes from the 2022 exam paper shows the strength of using a mixed-method research strategy in an action research project (interview and dialogue in groups) to generate information and to test the trustworthiness (credibility and validity) of the information in the co-generation process (Levin 2012). Interviews provide a safe space for participants to express their true thoughts and experiences allowing for open and honest responses as participants can share their opinions without the risk of judgement or repercussions from others (Jacobsen 2022). The observation of the shift in responses between interviews and during the workshop reflects an important aspect of critically reflection in a co-generation process. By comparing the answers, the student identifies the impact of group dynamics on the authenticity of feedback.

Levin (2012) emphasizes the dual role of action and reflection in action research. This role is crucial for maintaining academic integrity and rigor in co-generative processes. The action researcher must balance deep empathic involvement with critical reflective distance (Levin 2012). This balance is essential for transforming immediate, subjective experiences into robust knowledge. The shift in responses observed by the student mirrors this balance, highlighting how initial feedback in a less supportive environment (the first part of the workshop) can be contrasted with more candid feedback in a supportive, reflective setting (interviews and the later part of the workshop).

Levin (2012) uses the concept of “Bildung”, which encompasses the formation process necessary for action researchers to develop both their practical and reflective capacities. By engaging in structured reflective practices (Schön 1983, 1987) such as comparing different data collection contexts, students develop a deeper understanding of the interplay between action and reflection (Levin 2012).

Coghlan (2024) extends the discussion of Bildung, by introducing the concept of interiority, which emphasizes attending to both external data and internal consciousness. Interiority involves being attentive to experience, intelligent in understanding, reasonable in judging, and responsible in taking action. This framework helps action researchers differentiate between various modes of knowing, experiential, presentational, propositional, practical, and relational, and apply them appropriately in different contexts (Coghlan 2024).

By recognizing the different contributions of each mode, students can better navigate the complexities of co-generative processes and ensure a balanced approach to both rigor and relevance. This implies that students could consciously move between different modes of knowing. For example, while analyzing technical data (propositional knowing), they should also be aware of the relational dynamics at play (relational knowing) and how these might affect the interpretation of the data and the group’s decision-making processes. In this way, they can ensure that their reflections are holistic and take into account the multifaceted nature of real-life co-generation.

Complexity and Facilitation

As described earlier, in 2018, students were initially expected to navigate the dual challenge of facilitation and making substantive contributions, which created significant strain, as the students had little or no experience as facilitators. This situation demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between professional facilitators and facilitative actors (Costamagna and Larrea 2018), which, admittedly, we did not do in 2018. Professional facilitators are typically brought in to maintain neutrality, focusing solely on creating an environment conducive to effective discussions and decision-making without influencing the content of those discussions. In contrast, facilitative actors have their own stakes and perspectives in the outcomes and must balance facilitation with active participation and contribution (Costamagna and Larrea 2018).

Complexity highlights the multifaceted nature of the co-generation process, making the learning environment rich but challenging. Facilitation focuses on the importance of structured support to effectively manage these complexities. This underscores the importance of clearly defining and supporting the roles of facilitation in educational and territorial development contexts. If students are asked to take on facilitative responsibilities, it is crucial to provide them with adequate training and support to help them balance these duties with their learning objectives. Additionally, recognizing when to introduce professional facilitators can enhance the overall quality of the co-generation process, ensuring that all participants can contribute meaningfully without undue stress.

Democratic Dialogue in Regional Workshops

The observation of participants’ changes in meaning during the workshop, described by the student in 2022, is important from a democratic dialogue perspective. Group dynamics significantly influenced participants’ responses, with some feeling pressured to conform or present themselves in a socially desirable manner. This pressure led to hesitation in expressing dissent or acknowledging conflicts publicly, creating an environment that inhibited genuine co-generation of knowledge.

Different stakeholders’ presence led to more politically correct answers, demonstrating how context and group composition alter feedback and interaction in complex regional settings. This behavior reflects a failure in the democratic dialogical process as outlined by Gustavsen (1992) where trust is a necessary component. Gustavsen (1992) emphasizes that participants must engage authentically, sharing their true thoughts and experiences. The initial guarded responses indicate that the environment was not conducive to genuine dialogue, likely due to perceived risks associated with expressing dissenting or unpopular opinions. As the workshop progressed and group sizes decreased, the environment became more conducive to open dialogue. This shift allowed for more honest and critical reflections, moving towards a more genuine co-generative process.

Trust development is critical in co-generation processes. In the specific context of the regional co-generation workshop, participants who were unfamiliar with each other faced challenges in establishing trust, which is essential for open and honest dialogue. As noted by the student, honesty among participants is a cornerstone of such processes. Trust facilitates more genuine interactions and allows participants to express their true thoughts and concerns without fear of judgment or repercussion.

​ In contrast, within the regional co-generation arena, where participants meet regularly, trust has the opportunity to develop naturally. These ongoing interactions foster deeper levels of honesty and collaboration. Regular meetings and continuous engagement enable participants to build relationships and understand each other’s perspectives more fully, leading to a genuinely co-generative knowledge process.

This progression underscores Gustavsen (1992) argument that creating safe spaces for dialogue is crucial for facilitating co-generation. When participants feel safe, they are more likely to engage honestly, contributing to an authentic democratic dialogue. This is a challenge for professional facilitators Costamagna and Larrea (2018), that must manage group dynamics carefully to create conditions that encourage open, democratic, and honest dialogue. This involves establishing trust, ensuring all participants feel safe to express their true thoughts, and addressing power dynamics that may inhibit genuine participation. By doing so, professional facilitators (Costamagna and Larrea 2018) can foster an environment where co-generation and democratic dialogue can thrive, aligning with Gustavsen (1992) principles of honest and true dialogue. This also shows that a single workshop might not be enough to address the complexities of a co-generation process.

Conclusions

In this article, I have shown that it is possible to establish a learning arena, a co-generation arena, between the university and regional actors/regional practitioners (Karlsen and Larrea 2014). Within this arena, students and regional practitioners meet for various activities throughout the semester with the intention of co-generating knowledge and learn (Greenwood and Levin 2007) through applying the principles of a democratic dialogue (Gustavsen 1992).

Although regional actors are not explicitly addressed in the research questions of the article, they play a crucial role in the co-generation process. The emphasis is on constructing new knowledge together, rather than on students simply providing solutions. Regional actors actively participate in the co-generative process, contributing their practical knowledge and experience. They collaborate with students on real, complex territorial development challenges currently facing the region, dedicating time and resources throughout the entire semester. In various “learning arenas,” regional actors and students engage in dialogue, reflection, and action, allowing students to understand the complexities of territorial development. This collaboration benefits both parties: students gain insights into real-life processes, while regional actors receive fresh perspectives and input on their challenges. The engagement of regional actors, enriched by their experience, adds richness and quality to the co-generative learning process.

This study addresses two primary research questions posed at the beginning.

Research question 1: How can participation in co-generative learning processes at the territorial level enhance students’ capacity for critical reflection?

Participation in co-generative learning processes at the territorial level significantly enhances students’ capacity for critical reflection. By engaging with real-life territorial challenges, students encounter the complexities and ambiguities of collaborative territorial development. This exposure is important for the development of critical reflection and reflective skills, as students must navigate the dissonance between their expectations and the realities of the process. The integration of structured reflection sessions, such as reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action, supports students in understanding their roles and the dynamic nature of co-generative processes. These practices, grounded in Schön’s (1983, 1987) concept, help students link past dialogue with present and future actions, fostering a holistic understanding of their contributions. Levin’s (2012) concept of Bildung which integrates practical and reflective capacities, is central to this enhancement. By managing the dual roles of facilitator and participant, students gain deeper insights into the interplay between action and reflection, improving their ability to navigate complexity in territorial development. This process, coupled with the emphasis on democratic dialogue (Gustavsen 1992), ensures that students can critically reflect on their experiences and contribute meaningfully to the co-generative learning process.

Research question 2: How does participation in co-generative learning processes at the territorial level influence the facilitation of complex, territorial development processes?

The facilitation of complex territorial development processes is profoundly influenced by participation in co-generative learning processes. The dynamics of facilitation are shaped by the participatory approaches inherent in ARTD (Costamagna and Larrea 2018; Karlsen and Larrea 2014), and the introduction of regional complexity, underscores the intricate interplay of numerous actors across various territorial levels. A critical insight is the distinction between professional facilitators and facilitative actors (Costamagna and Larrea 2018). Facilitative actors, embedded within the context and actively participating in the process, play an important role in reflecting on complexity in and on action. The emphasis on democratic dialogue Gustavsen (1992) in a knowledge co-generation process, underscores the importance of professional facilitation (Costamagna and Larrea 2018).

Levin’s (2012) concept Bildung combined with Coghlan’s (2024) framework of interiority, further supports the importance of facilitation of co-generation processes. Reflection on action involves continuously assessing and adjusting facilitation approaches based on observations, ensuring the trustworthiness of a co-generative process (Levin 2012). Interiority, which emphasizes attending to both external data and internal consciousness, helps action researchers balance different modes of knowing and apply them appropriately in various contexts (Coghlan 2024).

Through these insights, this article contributes to the understanding of how co-generative learning processes can enhance both critical reflection and the facilitation of complex territorial development processes, reinforcing the importance of structured support and clear role definitions in managing these complexities.

This study was limited to a specific geographic region and context, focusing solely on the University of Agder and its collaboration with regional actors in the Agder region of Norway. The findings may not be generalizable to other regions or universities with different structural and cultural contexts. Additionally, the study relied on data from student exam papers and research diaries, which may introduce subjective biases and limit the objectivity of the findings. Furthermore, the course’s 7.5-credit structure may not fully capture the extensive demands and complexities of co-generative learning processes, potentially underestimating the true workload and depth of engagement required.

I hope that this article will motivate others to explore Levin’s legacy in different contexts. In this way, the principles and methods he pioneered, which we have adapted to the territorial level, can contribute to new action research projects.