Introduction
Involvement of vulnerable groups, such as refugees, in the co-creation or co-productionFootnote 1 of their own services has attracted increasing scholarly and policy attention (European Commission, 2020; Radl-Karimi et al., Reference Radl-Karimi, Nielsen, Sodemann, Batalden and von Plessen2022; Røhnebæk & Bjerck, Reference Røhnebæk and Bjerck2021). Engagement in such processes has been found to improve the well-being of these groups (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Conduit and Rao Hill2017; Sweeney et al., Reference Sweeney, Danaher and McColl-Kennedy2015) and enhance the quality of the services they receive (Nightingale et al., Reference Nightingale, Leyshon, Leyshon and Walker2016). Refugees often co-create their integration services by volunteering alongside native volunteers in local non-profit organizations. Volunteering strengthens immigrants’ agency (Ambrosini & Artero, Reference Ambrosini and Artero2023) and enhances their acceptance by the host society (Yap et al., Reference Yap, Byrne and Davidson2011). It also helps them build human,Footnote 2 social,Footnote 3 and culturalFootnote 4 capital (Corrado et al., Reference Corrado, D’Agostino, Musolino, Coscarello, Buscema and Vitale2018; Handy & Greenspan, Reference Handy and Greenspan2009), fostering their integration into host societies. Yet, to date, most research on co-creation with vulnerable groups has focused on the public sector (e.g., Burgess & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021; Mulvale & Robert, Reference Mulvale and Robert2021; Radl-Karimi et al., Reference Radl-Karimi, Nielsen, Sodemann, Batalden and von Plessen2022), and little is known about the factors supporting refugees in co-creation through volunteering.
Organizational factors such as leadership affect immigrants’ involvement in volunteering (Greenspan et al., Reference Greenspan, Walk and Handy2018; Handy & Greenspan, Reference Handy and Greenspan2009) and how welcoming—or marginalizing—the climate of an organization is to volunteers (Ellis & Jackson Reference Ellis and Jackson2010). Leadership can also facilitate value co-creation between diverse actors (Torfing et al., Reference Torfing, Sørensen and Røiseland2019) and create an environment conducive to the participation and empowerment of disadvantaged actors (Ansell & Gash, Reference Ansell and Gash2007). Arguably, then, although leadership is potentially important in engaging refuges in co-creation through volunteering, its role in this remains unexamined.
This study addresses this gap by exploring the role of non-profit leadership in engaging refugees in co-creation in the context of (formal) volunteering. Given the barriers faced by refugees are similar to those faced by other vulnerable groups, the insights obtained may have broad applicability. The study also extends the literature on co-creation to the relatively under-researched third sector.
The research question addressed in this study is: What is the role of non-profit leadership in engaging refugees in co-creation through volunteering? The study draws on qualitative data from Veiviser—an NGO-initiated project in Norway—where refugees co-create their integration services through volunteering alongside Norwegian-born and established immigrant volunteers. The following section reviews the literature on co-creation with vulnerable groups and the characteristics of the third sector as a setting for co-creation. The subsequent section discusses the role of leadership in co-creation. Following the case description and explication of the adopted methodology, the findings are discussed in light of the previous research. The article concludes with the study’s limitations and implications and recommendations for future research.
Theoretical Underpinnings
Co-creation and Vulnerable Groups
The term “vulnerable groups”Footnote 5 refers to social groups that, because of various factors such as their economic, social, or citizenship status, are more likely to experience harm, discrimination, or exclusion. Structural barriers hinder peoples’ civic and political participation as well as their ability to co-create their services (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Conduit and Rao Hill2017; Williams et al., Reference Williams, Kang and Johnson2016). For instance, immigrants are often excluded from participatory processes and experience discrimination long after settling in their host societies (see, for example, Ellerman, Reference Ellermann2020).
While co-creation is considered a means of empowering these groups (Røhnebæk & Bjerck, Reference Røhnebæk and Bjerck2021), the inherently imbalanced power structures and their marginalized social position make their engagement in these processes challenging (Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021; Williams et al., Reference Williams, Kang and Johnson2016). For instance, lack of language proficiency, cultural understanding, and familiarity with the host country’s welfare system all exacerbate inequalities in service interaction and reduce refugees’ capacity to co-create their integration services (Røhnebæk & Bjerck, Reference Røhnebæk and Bjerck2021). Other barriers include lack of trust (Burgess & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021) and lack of resources (Burges & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021; Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021).
Despite these obstacles, successful co-creation can be achieved through navigating and addressing power imbalances between stakeholders (Burges & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021; Farr, Reference Farr2018; Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021) and creating safe spaces for participation (Radl-Karimi et al., Reference Radl-Karimi, Nielsen, Sodemann, Batalden and von Plessen2022). Trust-building (Strokosch & Osborne, Reference Strokosch and Osborne2016) and providing financial resources (Burgess & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021; Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021) are also important for fostering the engagement of vulnerable groups in co-creation. Other factors include social capital (Stougaard, Reference Stougaard2020), perceived self-efficacy (Thomsen, Reference Thomsen2017), and organizational capabilities (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Conduit and Rao Hill2014). The interactional dynamics between actors are arguably influenced by the characteristics of the sector in which they occur, which can condition the opportunities, expectations, and outcomes of co-creation.
The Third Sector as a Setting for Co-creation
The third sector refers to a social domain “beyond the market, the state, and the household” (Salamon & Sokolowski, Reference Salamon and Sokolowski2016), comprising professional and community organizations that are neither for profit nor governmental. This study focuses on non-profit organizations that provide social support to vulnerable groups, such as social inclusion services for immigrants and refugees. These organizations are regarded as “uniquely placed to reach marginalized groups” (HM Treasury, Reference Treasury2002) and provide personalized services for end-users (Butler et al., Reference Butler, McLaughlin, Hayes and Percy2017). Although both the third sector and the public sector deliver services of a social/public character, the third sector arguably has a stronger impetus for co-creation due to its longer tradition of co-creation and comparatively limited bureaucratization (Benjamin & Brudney, Reference Benjamin and Brudney2018).
Non-profit organizations generally differ from public sector organizations (hereafter, PSOs) in terms of drivers, funding, services provided, and types of interaction between actors. These differences arguably influence the dynamics and outcomes of co-creation in both sectors. While PSOs are driven by political forces and run by paid staff legally bound to their organizations, many non-profit organizations are dependent on (mainly altruistically driven) volunteers to fulfill their missions (Benjamin & Brudney, Reference Benjamin and Brudney2018). Public sector services are generally formalized and predefined, whereas those delivered through volunteering tend to be less predictable and less formal. Moreover, in the public sector, service interaction can be non-voluntary—as in prisons (Osborne, Reference Osborne2018)—whereas volunteering is inherently non-compulsory.
The Role of Leadership
Effective leaders nurture the involvement of “disadvantaged” actors in collaborative processes by creating environments conducive to participation and empowerment (Ansell & Gash, Reference Ansell and Gash2007). Leaders also influence the outcomes of collaboration by contributing to structures and processes that foster collaboration (Huxham & Vangen, Reference Huxham and Vangen2005). Collective power can be fostered in collaborative processes through navigating power dynamics, relational issues, and vulnerability between stakeholders (Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021). This requires co-ordination and management of a variety of psychological, social, cultural, and institutional interactions that influence power dynamics (Farr, Reference Farr2018). By creating shared relational identities (Hogg et al., Reference Hogg, van Knippenberg and Rast2012) and spanning identity boundaries (Ernst & Yip, Reference Ernst, Yip and Pittinsky2009) leaders can foster intergroup collaboration. In the context of volunteering—where financial incentives or legal compulsion generally do not apply—the role of the leadership, particularly in relation to its motivational effect, arguably becomes even more relevant.
Based on the discussion above, several hypotheses can be proposed. First, a leadership effort toward creating a conducive environment for participation is important for refugees’ engagement in co-creation. This requires first and foremost trust-building among the three participant groups in the project. Moreover, given the diverse backgrounds and potential power imbalances between participant groups, the power dynamics navigation, facilitation of cross-cultural understanding, and conflict mediation are critical for fostering refugees’ engagement in the project. As newcomers, refugees are likely to struggle financially; hence, the provision of necessary resources is influential for their participation and engagement. Lastly, as refugees will be interacting with Norwegian-born and established immigrant volunteers, the latter’s preparation and motivation are important for refugees’ engagement in co-creation.
The Case of Veiviser
VeiviserFootnote 6 is an NGO-initiated project that aims to foster the social inclusion of new immigrants (typically refugees) in Norwegian society by providing opportunities for Norwegian language learning, improving cultural understanding, and networking (https://kirkensbymisjon.no/veiviser/bergen/). Veiviser is an arena for intercultural interactions between three groups of participants: newly arrived immigrants, immigrant volunteers who have lived in Norway for some time, and volunteers with a Norwegian background.
ParticipantsFootnote 7 interact in groups of typically three participants—-a newly arrived immigrant (hereafter refugee/R),Footnote 8 an immigrant volunteer who has lived in Norway for some time (hereafter established immigrant volunteer/EIV),Footnote 9 and a volunteer with Norwegian background (hereafter Norwegian-born volunteer/NBV).Footnote 10
Within the Veiviser project, refugees receive personalized services from Norwegian-born and established immigrant volunteers. These include language, cultural, and employment support (e.g., job applications, recommendation letters, and CV writing) and help accessing welfare services such as health, education, and social services. In some groups, at the outset of interactions, refugees co-design a tailored plan with the Norwegian-born and established immigrant volunteers, which they follow during project implementation. In Veiviser, volunteers serve thus primarily as service providers and refugees as service receivers.
Method
An exploratory research design was chosen because of its suitability for investigating phenomena without an established understanding (Yin, Reference Yin2009). Eighteen in-depth interviews were conducted with respondents during June 2021. Of these, two involved the project organizers (one project leader (PL) and one coordinator (PC); hereafter, leaders),Footnote 11 and 16 interviews were conducted with participants (i.e., six refugees, five established immigrant volunteers, and five Norwegian-born volunteers).
Respondent Recruitment
Leaders were recruited purposively, whereas the recruitment of participants was facilitated by the project leader. Different processes were used to recruit refugees and volunteers. For the recruitment of volunteers, I was invited by the project leader to present the study at a social event organized exclusively for the volunteers. This was an “ideal” opportunity to reach out to many volunteers simultaneously and invite them to participate in the study. Standard invitation letters with information about the study were sent by email to those who expressed interest. To recruit refugees, I asked the project leader to provide a list of names. Because these respondents were recruited via the project leader, some might have been given access to participate in the study, while others might have been denied it. To mitigate the risk of such gatekeeping, I encouraged the project leader to provide a diverse list of potential participants in terms of age, gender, and duration of participation in the project. For practical reasons, we agreed that respondents should have basic language skills in Norwegian or English. The list I received seemed to reflect refugees as a group in the project. I then sent standard invitations with information about the study to refugee participants who had access to email. Most, however, did not use email, and I contacted them by phone.
Interview Process
This study utilized semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. Leaders were asked about their role in engaging refugees in co-creation, and participants where asked about their perceptions of this leadership role. The project was registered at the Norwegian Center for Research Data (NSD), and informed consent was obtained from respondents before commencing interviews. Interviews lasted between 60 and 110 min and were conducted in a comfortable room at the CCM premises. Out of 18 interviews, 17 were conducted in Norwegian and only one in English. The reason for conducting one interview in English was that one of the respondents had recently arrived in Norway and did not speak Norwegian. No translators were involved in the interviewing process, which presented both advantages and disadvantages for different groups of informants with different levels of Norwegian language proficiency. The opportunity to speak in their own language allowed the Norwegian-born volunteers to share their experiences and views freely, which increased their engagement during the interview. However, the ability to express and convey messages clearly in Norwegian varied among established immigrant volunteers: two of them had been living in Norway for many years and were fluent in Norwegian; therefore, with them, the interviewing process went smoothly. The other two informants were able to convey their messages but had difficulties expressing their ideas clearly. In cases where I was not clear about the intended message, respondents were asked to provide examples or further information.
The language barrier was more apparent in the interviews with refugees, as most of them had recently arrived and lacked Norwegian language skills. Consequently, these interviews were characterized by multiple interruptions where participants needed time to think and formulate and express their ideas. Despite these barriers, one-on-one interviews generated a sense of connection with the respondents, which would have been difficult had translators been involved. Interviewing lasted until data saturation was attained.
Data Analysis
For data analysis, I used an inductive approach consistent with constructivist grounded theory which is useful for understanding why and how actors create meanings and actions in particular situations (Charmaz, Reference Charmaz2014). Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using MAXQDA software. To increase the accuracy of interpretation, transcripts were reread several times and coded based on constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, Reference Glaser and Strauss1967). Codes were then grouped into overarching themes and subthemes, providing conceptual depth to the phenomena under investigation. A substantive literature review identified several sensitizing concepts (e.g., building trust, a safe space for participation, and power imbalances) (Charmaz, Reference Charmaz2014). These partly served as analytical lenses for identifying and nuancing emerging themes. The constructed overarching themes reflect leadership goals for engaging refugees in co-creation, while the subthemes reflect the tactics, they used to achieve these goals and how the project participants perceived them.
Findings
The findings are organized thematically and explore the leaders’ goals and the tactics they used to engage refugees in co-creation and the project participants’ perceptions of the leadership role.
Theme I—Building Trust
Leaders depicted refugees as vulnerable and skeptical, particularly during the recruitment phase. They described the initiation phase of the project as characterized by low trust levels due to refugees’ lack of information about the project and their expected role in it:
“They are always skeptical when they meet us for the first time” (PC)
Discussing the challenges of the initial phases, the project leader added:
“Getting started is the hardest…many questions can arise, such as ‘who are these people’, ‘what will I talk about’, and so on. It takes time [to build trust].” (PL)
Building trustFootnote 12 was deemed crucial for the recruitment and engagement of refugees in the project. Two leadership tactics for building trust were identified: meeting refugees in a familiar place and involving employees with an immigrant background.
Meeting refugees in a familiar place was implicitly believed to create a sense of comfort and control over the process for them. Leaders reported that they held their first meetings with the refugees at the Introduction CenterFootnote 13 (a familiar place) and in the presence of integration consultantsFootnote 14 (familiar people).
“We meet them at the Introduction Center [because they feel safer] there.” (PC)
The data obtained from the refugee participants indicate, however, that building trust required familiar places that were also deemed as welcoming. While most considered the Introduction Center as welcoming, some reported negative experiences there due to neglect of their needs and requests. The following quotes from two refugees illustrate these divergent experiences.
“[Meeting the leaders] at the Introduction Center [alongside] my integration consultant [felt] much safer. You know, in the beginning we feel afraid about everything ... so meeting them [at another place]… ohh… it would have been difficult…” (R 5)
“[The integration consultants] could [guide] us and we [would] follow them, but they do not want to do that. I remember once I struggled very much to find some information…I had to do it all by myself.” (R 4)
Such negative experiences may explain the perceived initial low level of trust among some of the refugees. Despite low trust initially, refugees developed trust in the project over time. The trust-based relationships between them and the volunteers reflected this.
“They [see] me as a trusted person with whom they can talk about issues”(NBV 1)
Such trust-building was seemingly supported by the volunteers’ inclusive approach, creating a safe space for refugee participation.
Involving employees with immigrant backgrounds was deemed useful by the leaders for improving the outreach, recruitment, and engagement of refugees in co-creation. The project coordinator, a first-generation immigrant to Norway, believed that her first-hand experience made her more relatable to refugees.
“It is easier for [refugees] to relate to me as an immigrant…they feel much safer with me, I think.” (PC)
According to the project leader (a native Norwegian), immigrant co-workers enhanced the project’s perceived trustworthiness.
“I often feel that the project coordinator speaks to the [immigrants’] hearts, and that I speak to their heads.” (PL)
While the refugees acknowledged the symbolic value of having a leader with an immigrant background, they did not emphasize its importance for their engagement. The importance of having a leader with experience of being an immigrant was, however, emphasized by the volunteers, particularly the Norwegian-born ones. The personal stories the project coordinator shared during their preparatory course had helped some of them to better understand and interact with immigrants.
“The stories [the project coordinator] shared helped me to understand what immigrants can go through and to better [deal] with them.” (NBV 4)
The immigrant leader had, therefore, both symbolic and functional roles in the project. Interestingly, her influence was exerted more indirectly through her preparatory work with the volunteers, rather than through direct interaction with the refugees.
Theme II—Creating a Safe Space for Participation
Leaders recognized the risks of refugees’ feeling vulnerable to harm, stigma, or fear, and emphasized the importance of a safe space for their participation.
“Having a safe place [to] ask questions, a place [to] discuss difficult things [in] a safe manner [is important].” (PL)
Three leadership tactics aimed at creating a safe space were identified: preparing volunteers to interact with refugees, creating groups that thrive, and conflict mediation.
Preparing volunteers to interact with refugees was considered important for preventing potential collaboration challenges. Leaders held a mandatory 2-day preparatory course for the volunteers to prepare them to deal with the refugees in a responsible manner:
“[In this course] we inform them about … the project and their responsibilities… [We also] tell them how to take care of [the refugees].” (PC)
The importance of this course was also highlighted by the volunteers, particularly the Norwegian-born ones, who described it as helpful for avoiding potential pitfalls during interactions with the refugees.
“I remember [during the course] we got suggestions from the [project leader] to be very careful, [for example] not to ask about how refugees came [to Norway], what they experienced in their home countries, and so on.” (NBV 2)
Given that for some of the Norwegian-born volunteers, this was their first interaction with a refugee—and, for some of the refugees, their first interaction with a Norwegian—such preparation was of particular importance.
After preparation, leaders match participants in groups “that thrive” (PL) in collaboration. This reportedly required attention to their backgrounds, including their cultural norms, values, and beliefs.
“We have had transsexual…and homosexual [refugee] participants…and [for me] it is important to know [about their sexual orientation] in advance, because then I can think and find out who would be a suitable match for them in the groups, about who can accept and tolerate that.” (PL)
“…For some [immigrant] women, it is not permissible to be in groups with men, so we group them with other women participants.” (PL)
Such factors were also considered during the recruitment phase. In their initial meetings with refugees, leaders thought of suitable volunteers to group them with. Refugees could also make specific requests in this regard.
“I told [the leaders] not to put me in a group with older men because in my home country it was difficult to deal with them.” (R 5)
Recruiting refugees who were willing and able to participate was deemed pivotal for creating thriving groups. Moreover, leaders worked to ensure that Veiviser was beneficial not only for the refugees but also for the volunteers.
“During the first meeting we [see] if they are interested and have the opportunity to participate…It is pity for engaged volunteers to have in the groups [refugees] who are not willing or do not have time to attend the group meetings.” (PL)
Leaders’ extensive experience of working in the non-profit sector with various vulnerable groups was important in identifying suitable refugee participants:
“I have worked for a long time with different people, which makes it easier to identify [the right participants]…Oftentimes, I intuitively know [which candidates are suitable] for the project.” (PL).
These findings reveal that successful co-creation required leaders to act as gatekeepers and select refugees suitable for the project.
Despite this, leaders noted that conflicts sometimes emerged within the groups, requiring them to engage in conflict mediation. However, they preferred to play a supportive rather than arbitration role in disputes.
“We talk with participants […] but we think it is best for them to resolve such things within the groups, in which case we support them.” (PL)
The important role of the leaders in this regard was also reported by volunteers.
“I’ve had a case with a volunteer who … didn't really engage with the group, but we solved [that issue] by involving [the project leader]” (NBV 3)
As with building trust, creating a safe space for refugees’ engagement stemmed more from leaders working with volunteers than directly with the refugees.
Theme III—Fostering Equality
Creating an arena for equal participation emerged as a major leadership goal. To foster equality, leaders promoted shared decision-making and worked to reframe the prevailing refugee narrative, which depicts them as lacking resources or capabilities. They promoted immigrants’ values by describing them as resourceful individuals capable of enriching both the volunteers and Norwegian society.
“I have a firm belief that diversity enriches us…I really want people to experience that diversity is a strength in our society.” (PL)
Leaders were aware, however, of immigrants’ marginalization and promoted the project as an opportunity to address social inequalities. Veiviser was also perceived as an arena for equal participation by the refugees and volunteers:
“I feel we manage to meet as equals here.” (NBV 1)
“[Refugees] can decide and choose like others in the group.” (EIV 1)
“We make decisions jointly.” (R 2)
Although equality was advocated by the leaders as a goal in itself, refugees depicted it primarily as an opportunity to tailor services to their needs through shared decision-making. This was because they were eager to improve their language skills, cultural understanding, and, ultimately, their employability, through interactions, rather than be equal to other volunteers.
“I joined the project to learn the language and [about] society.” (R 2)
“To learn the language, and to feel free in society.” (R 1)
This was also reflected in their perceptions of their own role in mutual interactions. For instance, contrary to the leaders’ depiction of refugees as resourceful people capable of enriching the volunteers, refugees saw themselves as beneficiaries rather than contributors.
“I am just a participant here.” (R 2)
“I do not know what I contribute to others, because in this situation, it is me who gets help…I learn [the Norwegian] language and culture.” (R 4)
Interestingly, however, the findings indicated that leaders’ normative ambitions and refugees instrumental motives did not conflict, but complemented each other to foster refugee engagement in co-creation. Leaders’ commitment to fostering equality between participants created an enabling environment for refugees to achieve their instrumental aspirations.
Theme IV—Empowerment
EmpowermentFootnote 15 of refugees emerged as a notable theme. Creating an environment where refugees could exert greater control over their lives and turn their constraints into opportunities was a strong leadership ambition.
“Being able to use their good and difficult experiences and to turn them into resources for others, I think is tremendously important.” (PL)
To foster empowerment, leaders promoted autonomyFootnote 16 and inclusionFootnote 17 in the project. The project coordinator stated “it is up to the groups to decide what they will do.” However, she emphasized the importance of “ensuring that refugees are included and that they also can decide about the group’s activities.” A high degree of autonomy was also reported by the participants and considered important for fostering refugee engagement in co-creation:
"...we choose what to do… and this is very good because we don't do things because we have to, but because we want to." (R 3)
“When [refugees] do things they like, they learn much faster…they become much more interested and engaged in what they do.” (EIV 1)
To encourage participation in the project, leaders also secured financial support to the groups:
“If participants [had] to pay themselves for [project] activities, it would have been
difficult since some of them do not have enough money for that.” (PL)
The provision of resources was appreciated by all participant groups:.
“As an immigrant one does not often have the opportunity to do things…but
[here we can] because we have enough money.” (EIV 1)
“We get money to do group activities, which is very important.” (NBV 3)
Most refugees reported that Veiviser has helped them to improve their language skills, enhance cultural understanding, and extend their social network.
“I feel that I have improved my language [skills], learned about the society and made friends.” (R 3)
“This project has made me believe that with hard work and dedication, everything is possible, that every dream can be achieved.” (R 6)
Refugee empowerment is also exemplified by their willingness and intention to become volunteers in new groups, transitioning thus from service receivers to service providers:
“I intend to become a volunteer in another group.” (R 2)
“I want to help others, like the other helped me.” (R 4)
Above all, the findings indicate that participation in Veiviser strengthened refugees’ agency, enabling them to gain a greater control over their own lives.
Discussion
This study aimed to explore the role of non-profit leadership in engaging refugees (as a vulnerable group) in co-creation through volunteering. Overall, the empirical evidence suggests that leadership plays a crucial role in creating a conducive environment for refugee engagement. This was achieved at Veiviser through commitment to building trust, creating a safe space for participation, promoting equality, and fostering empowerment. Surprisingly, the analysis revealed that to achieve these goals, leaders worked less directly with the refugees and more with the volunteers. Preparing and engaging the latter was critical for refugees’ engagement. One insight from this study is that engaging vulnerable groups in co-creation in the third sector requires a more indirect than direct leadership role. This, in turn, implies that the role of leadership is not readily apparent to vulnerable groups, or may even be invisible, as leaders may operate more in the background of their (service) interactions. This may also explain why the refugee respondents did not emphasize the importance of leadership to their engagement in co-creation.
The findings show that fostering refugees’ engagement in co-creation required the leaders to satisfy not only the needs and the interests of the refugees, but also those of the volunteers. This was not surprising given volunteers were in direct interactions with the refugees, and the engagement of the former would inevitably influence the engagement of the latter. Moreover, volunteers’ engagement was important as they (like most volunteers) were neither financially incentivized nor legally bound to the project.
Interestingly, co-creation was seen by the leaders as a means of empowering refugees through fostering their sense of equality, autonomy, ownership, and access to resources rather than improving the specific services they received. This contrasts with mainstream research on public administration, which depicts co-creation primarily as a method for service improvement through service users’ involvement in service development (Osborne & Strokosch, Reference Osborne and Strokosch2013). A plausible explanation for this difference is that, for many non-profit organizations, empowerment of marginalized groups is an ultimate goal and means of social impact creation, whereas the primary function and responsibility of the public sector is to deliver (quality) services for citizens. Accordingly, this suggests that, in the third-sector context, a conceptualization of co-creation that emphasis value outcomes from mutual interactions, which is in line with the service management’s perspective on co-creation (see, for example, Vargo & Lusch, Reference Vargo and Lusch2008) may be more relevant.
The analysis implies that leaders acted as gatekeepers to the project by screening the refugee candidates, (only) selecting those they deemed motivated and able to participate. Such “cherry-picking” attitude can be explained through Lipsky’s (Reference Lipsky2010) “creaming” concept, according to which public officials prioritize clients who have the highest success potential in social programs in order to meet bureaucratic success criteria. Here, the non-profit leaders apparently acted in a similar way to public officials by selecting participants that were easiest to serve and not necessarily those who were most in need. This similarity can be attributed to the (high) level of discretion that both non-profit leaders and Lipsky’s street-level bureaucrats have in participant selection as well as the resource constraints that both actors face in accomplishing their organizations’ missions, which pushes them toward such discriminatory attitudes.
However, leaders’ ability to choose participants was foremost enabled by the voluntary nature of the project, or the fact that the refugees were not “entitled” to participate in it. This is generally not the case in the public sector where equal access to public services is, at least in principle, guaranteed to all citizens. Therefore, another insight from this study is that engaging vulnerable groups in co-creation in the third sector may be easier because those who are given the opportunity to participate are more likely to be motivated to and capable of doing so. This also suggests that successful co-creation with vulnerable groups in the third sector may depend on leaders’ ability to identify and recruit suitable participants. The findings also indicate that leaders’ implicit knowledge, or what Polanyi (Reference Polanyi1966) calls “tacit knowledge”—is pivotal for or even predicative of successful co-creation with vulnerable groups in the third-sector context.
To ensure successful collaboration between volunteers, attention was paid to their cultural norms, values, and beliefs at the group formation phase. For example, leaders were careful when mixing LGBTQ + people with others, or creating mixed-gender groups, as some immigrants (refugee or established immigrant volunteer) may have objected. While this was important for some immigrants’ participation, it could also be a potential barrier to their integration into Norwegian society. This is because diversity of sexual orientation and gender interactions are regarded as values in Norwegian society, and the fact that immigrants were not given the chance to face or challenge their preconceptions through Veiviser could potentially hinder their integration. In relation to co-creation research, this implies that non-profit leaders may have to make concessions and prioritize some values over others to make co-creation with vulnerable groups feasible. In this case, leaders prioritized language skills, cultural knowledge, and networking over other (intangible) societal values that are also important for integration into Norwegian society.
The findings show that how leaders perceived their role and how refugees perceived that role with regard to their engagement in co-creation differed in some instances. For example, leaders believed that involving employees with an immigrant background had a direct effect on building refugees’ trust, whereas the findings revealed that this effect was indirect. Similarly, equality was considered important for refugees’ engagement by both the leaders and the refugees, but for seemingly different reasons. While leaders promoted a normative perspective of equality that emphasized immigrants’ inherent worth and the need to create a more just and inclusive society, refugees viewed it quite instrumentally. This suggests that what the leaders regard as important for the engagement of vulnerable groups might not (always) be considered important for these groups themselves. A plausible explanation for this difference can be derived from Maslow’s (Reference Maslow1954) Hierarchy of Needs theory, according to which the leaders, operating at the top of the pyramid, focus more on refugees’ self-actualization, whereas the refugees, given their vulnerable situation, prioritize their ‘immediate’ or lower-level needs.
The findings show that refugees were skeptical about but not averse to participating in co-creation. They were eager to learn Norwegian language and culture and to expand their network, and saw their interactions with the volunteers as an opportunity to achieve these goals. This suggests that some vulnerable groups might be easier to engage in co-creation because they are more motivated to utilize its benefits. Nevertheless, given that motivated and capable people are likely to find their own means of involvement in participatory processes, it can also be counterargued that engagement in co-creation is easiest for the vulnerable groups that need it the least. The overarching leadership goals and tactics identified in this study are presented in (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 Leadership goals and tactics for engaging refugee volunteers in co-creation
The main findings of the present study support those found in the literature. For example, several previous studies have emphasized the importance of building trust with minority groups prior to “officially” beginning co-creation (Burgess & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021; Stougaard, Reference Stougaard2020) or during the early phases (Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021). There is also corroborating evidence for the trust-building techniques identified in this study, such as the importance of meeting minority groups in their own settings and involving leaders with minority backgrounds (Burgess & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021). The previous studies have also acknowledged the importance of a safe space for participation, where marginalized groups can voice their opinions in a supportive and non-stigmatizing environment (Burgess & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021; Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021). The rationales behind the leadership tactics are also in tune with those reported in the literature, including the importance of a well-planned approach for preparing participants (Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021) and the creation of platforms that foster dialog and allow the needs of marginalized people to be identified (Røhnebæk & Bjerck, Reference Røhnebæk and Bjerck2021). Nevertheless, this study suggests novel means for creating safe spaces, such as preparatory courses for participants and creating thriving groups.
The analysis revealed a strong leadership ambition to create a platform for equal participation between the refugees and volunteers. This is important, as mere tokenistic involvement of these groups undermines the value of their input and may further marginalize them (Iedema et al., Reference Iedema, Merrick, Piper, Britton, Gray, Verma and Manning2010). In line with the previous studies, the findings indicate the importance of participants owning the co-creation process (Talsma & Molenbroek, Reference Talsma and Molenbroek2012) and the provision of material resources (Burgess & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021; Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021). More broadly, they suggest the importance of attentiveness, critical reflection, and responsiveness with regards to engaging vulnerable groups in co-creation (Burgess & Choudary, Reference Burgess and Choudary2021; Mulvale et al., Reference Mulvale, Miatello, Green, Tran, Roussakis and Mulvale2021).
Despite these contributions, the study has several limitations. It draws on a small sample, which does not allow generalization, and the specific socio-economic context of Norway may limit the findings’ transferability to other national contexts. Nevertheless, given the lack of previous research on this subject, this study provides a preliminary and an in-depth investigation of the topic. Due to the paucity of research on co-creation with vulnerable groups in the third sector, this study draws largely on public sector literature, which may bias the discussion as PSOs are guided by a different ethos. However, in both sectors, the engagement of refugees in co-creation is hindered by similar factors, such as lack of information, mistrust, and language barriers, and can thus, in many ways, be paralleled.
Conclusion
This article explored the role of non-profit leadership in engaging refugees in co-creation through volunteering. In this context, creating a conducive environment for participation is essential and demands an active leadership role in building trust, creating a safe space for participation, fostering equality, and empowering participation.
Successful co-creation in this setting seems to require a more indirect than direct leadership role. Engaging vulnerable groups in co-creation in the third sector may be easier because of a selection process that favors those who are more motivated and capable of participating. This seems to be enabled by the voluntary nature of the third sector and leaders’ gatekeeping role in participant recruitment. Leaders’ ability to identify participants, particularly their tacit knowledge, appears to be crucial or even predicative of successful co-creation with these groups. Moreover, to make co-creation with these groups feasible, leaders may need to make concessions and prioritize some values over others.
The findings of this study may be valuable for non-profit managers working on engaging vulnerable groups in co-creation. In particular, the tactics identified can be applied by them to foster the engagement of these groups in co-creation. Future studies should investigate whether the goals and tactics identified support the engagement of refugees and/or other vulnerable groups in the public sector and in other national contexts. Further research is also needed to explore the value of different leadership styles in engaging vulnerable groups in the co-creation of other (welfare) services. To increase the representativeness of the findings, studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted.
Acknowledgements
I thank Associate Professor Astrid Ouahyb Sundsbø (Western Norway University of Applied Sciences) for her generous feedback and contribution to the conception and design of an earlier version of this manuscript. I also thank Professors Roar Stokken and Ole Andreas Brekke for their constructive feedback on this article. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the study participants for sharing their experiences and to the anonymous reviewers for their excellent critique of the article and suggestions to improve its quality.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Western Norway University Of Applied Sciences. Open-access funding provided by Western Norway University of Applied Sciences.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Open access
