From leadership research to district action: “With a Little Help from My Friends”: Co-Creating Belonging in Higher Education

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. Proposed district actions are separate from the original authors’ findings and recommendations. Independent peer review of this guide is not asserted.

Read source Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and transfer

Education-related source: verify which participants, institutions and outcomes were actually studied before district adoption. Source publication type: research-article. License and identity checks do not establish study quality or causality.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the source license:

Abstract Universities are increasingly seeking ways to build students’ sense of belonging. This paper reports a mixed-methods evaluation of BE At King’s, a seed-funded programme supporting grassroots, co-created initiatives to strengthen connection and inclusion across a large, multi-campus institution. Five projects—ranging from art clubs and community breakfasts to hackathons and writing retreats—were designed and delivered by students and staff, with evaluation embedded from the outset. Quantitative survey data (n = 202) showed high levels of belonging overall, with structured, interactive initiatives most strongly associated with meeting new people and feeling connected. Qualitative thematic analysis highlighted four themes—Refreshing Routines, Inclusive Conditions, Community Leadership, and Layered Engagement—revealing how belonging was fostered through predictable routines, psychologically safe spaces, and opportunities for shared ownership. Bringing findings together shows that grassroots initiatives can engage even less-connected students, but that careful design, inclusive outreach, and sustained facilitation are critical to their success. We argue that universities should embed belonging within the everyday fabric of institutional life through co-produced, flexible, and locally responsive approaches that combine institutional commitment with community leadership. Keywords: student belonging, grassroots initiatives, co-creation, higher education engagement, mixed-methods evaluation

Study methods

This study employed a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the impact of grassroots initiatives on participants’ belonging and engagement. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through pre- and post-engagement surveys. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with initiative participants. The qualitative component was conducted within a critical-realist, experiential framework, emphasising participants’ meaning-making rather than verification of ‘accuracy.’

Limitations

These findings underscore ongoing challenges in evidencing the impact of small-scale grassroots work. Variation in sample size and design across projects limits the generalisability of conclusions, and the short timeframe for evaluation constrains our ability to assess sustained outcomes. Women and postgraduate students were more likely to engage, highlighting persistent equity issues. While the study captures variation in engagement across roles and levels of study, it was not designed to examine intersectional differences in belonging (e.g., across race, gender, disability, socio-economic background, or caring status), limiting our ability to understand how experiences of co-created initiatives may differ for students and staff positioned differently within institutional power structures. Participants reflected on the challenge of spreading awareness and securing attendance. Simply supporting grassroots initiatives operationally may be insufficient without robust and inclusive outreach strategies. Future research should explore ways to embed belonging initiatives into institutional strategy while preserving their grassroots character. The sector needs evaluation approaches that are proportionate yet capable of capturing long-term change (Dias-Broens et al., 2024; Priestley et al., under review).

A 90-day district inquiry

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Read the source methods, recruitment, comparator, outcomes and limitations. Record how the study setting differs from your district and which claim the design can support.
Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one school improvement question with teachers. Protect a short shared planning cycle, agree an instructional change and use a common rubric for examining student work. Agree participation, privacy protections, baseline and stopping rules before starting.
Days 31–60 · Observe. Collect the pre-agreed measures, keep a log of implementation changes and invite confidential voluntary feedback. Preserve existing support for staff and learners.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Review implementation fidelity, teacher time and independently scored student work against a recorded baseline. Examine access differences and competing explanations before attributing changes to leadership. Make a dated decision to stop, revise or extend the inquiry.

Board decision brief

Present the local problem, source setting, evidence limits, intervention, responsible owner, total cost, measured changes and uncertainty. Separate staff perceptions, implementation measures and student learning outcomes.

Attribution and reuse

Faiza Aman; Zak Evans; Stephanie White; Arlette Albert; Juliet Foster; Nicola Byrom. “With a Little Help from My Friends”: Co-Creating Belonging in Higher Education. Behavioral Sciences (2026-02-04). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16020226

Prepared 2026-11-07. Source authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract and source passages are attributed extracts; this editorial guide is offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license.