Abstract
Business schools are increasingly expected to equip students with competencies to drive social responsibility in business, alongside attainment of professional knowledge and technical skills. Yet how students learn about social responsibility and build agency to address complex social problems remains a developing area of scholarship. Through case study research, we report insights from integrating the lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged into management education at an Australian business school. We argue that integrating lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged is an effective experiential approach for enhancing affective empathy around social problems and transforming students’ ability to address complex social issues. In doing so, we contribute to mainstreaming lived experience pedagogy in teaching social responsibility.
Keywords
Introduction
Business schools are increasingly expected to incorporate principles and practices of responsible management in teaching and learning. Employers similarly expect that business schools prepare graduates who possess both technical knowledge and qualities as responsible, ethical and empathetic leaders (Ambrosini et al., 2023; Greenberg and Hibbert, 2022). Yet, how business schools teach social responsibility through curriculum and pedagogy so that students can effectively understand and address contemporary social problems in business contexts remains emergent in literature (Ambrosini et al., 2023; Montiel et al., 2018). While there is a developing body of scholarship exploring affective experiential learning (e.g. Kisfalvi and Oliver, 2015), including in teaching social responsibility (Mooney and Cockburn, 2024; Skilling et al., 2024), we contribute a novel pedagogical approach to teaching social responsibility, which we term “Lived Experience Values-Based Experiential Learning (LEVEL),” which integrates the lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged in experiential learning. We argue this pedagogic approach develops students’ cognitive empathy of social problems and, importantly, compared to other methods, fosters affective empathy to inspire action towards social change. While integrating diverse lived experiences is common in mental health, nursing, and social work education (Dorozenko et al., 2016), it is far less prevalent in management education. In examining students’ learning from integrating lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged in a social impact hackathon, we show how LEVEL pedagogy facilitates affective empathetic learning and inspires social change.
Regarding the terminology of “lived experience,” this article focuses on how students’ listen and learn from the lived experiences of others, specifically, individuals with lived experience of social disadvantage, rather than students’ own personal lived experience of social problems. We investigate this through two research questions: (1) How does integration of lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged shape students’ affective learning of social responsibility? (2) What implications arise for practice in teaching social responsibility in business schools? Our findings extend the limited scholarship of how real-world experience of social problems can be systematically embedded within management education and teaching of social responsibility. From here we review literature on responsible management education (RME) and teaching social responsibility, highlighting limited attention to integrating lived experience perspectives in management education and its role in shaping affective empathy. We then present our case study of a social impact hackathon which integrated lived experiences, including methods of data collection and analysis. After presenting empirical insights from students’ learning, we discuss theoretical contributions and implications for teaching practice, including guiding principles for implementing this pedagogy practically and ethically. We conclude by outlining limitations of the study and future research directions.
Responsible management education
Scholarly debate has emerged in recent years around how business schools effectively prepare students to enact social responsibility in their future careers (Greenberg and Hibbert, 2022; Toubiana, 2014). The UN’s Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME), introduced in 2007, aims to transform management education by foregrounding sustainability concerns in teaching and learning in business schools. As part of implementing PRME, there is growing discussion on ways curriculum and pedagogy need to change to enable students to develop both awareness of social problems and agency to enact positive social change (Greenberg and Hibbert, 2022; Montiel et al., 2018). In response, PRME signatories have begun turning their attention to curricula and pedagogy that foreground social justice, ethics and social responsibility, shifting these topics from the periphery to the centre of management education (Earle and Leyva-de la Hiz, 2021).
But despite anticipation of PRME transforming management education, the extent of change is debatable. Business schools have been criticised for failing to challenge the corporate emphasis on profit and wealth maximisation in curriculum, particularly by continuing to teach corporate social responsibility (CSR) which some argue perpetuates self-interested, profit-seeking behaviour (Ambrosini et al., 2023; Toubiana, 2014). Responsible management education has also been criticised as tokenistic with an “unease about whether higher education adequately prepares business students for the moral challenges of both college (university) and their subsequent entry into the business world” (Hanson and Moore, 2014: 525). Arguably, there is a need for what Toubiana (2014: 97) calls “critical institutional work” to embed more transformative pedagogy that strives for social change.
Teaching social responsibility: experiential learning and the role of emotions
Much attention around RME has focused on integrating social responsibility in curricula, ensuring students can “intellectually understand and solve problems” through pure cognitive learning (Shrivastava, 2010: 443). Debate continues around how educators should teach social responsibility through experiential learning to shift from building cognitive awareness of social and environmental problems (e.g. climate change, poverty) towards designing effective solutions (Earle and Leyva-de la Hiz, 2021; Montiel et al., 2018). Our article brings together theoretical concepts of experiential learning (EL), lived experience, emotions and empathy to explore this issue. We argue that the current emphasis on teaching social responsibility through traditional pedagogic approaches limits affective learning of social problems as these approaches privilege cognitive learning of social problems. Integrating lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged is an example of experiential learning pedagogy which can drive affective empathetic learning as it develops emotional connection to social problems to inspire social change. This conceptual framing is discussed below.
In recent years, EL has gained traction within management education as a reflective learning technique (Cunliffe and Easterby-Smith, 2004; Dean et al., 2020). Compared to methods which passively “deposit” knowledge onto students, in EL students are active in their learning, defined as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984: 38 in Kolb and Kolb, 2005). Students construct their own knowledge and understanding through thinking, feeling and reflection to learn from an experience and guide future action (Kolb and Kolb, 2005). Experiential learning is facilitated through techniques that simulate real-life experiences, such as case studies, role-plays, games, videos, internships, field trips, or (in our case) hackathons.
The effectiveness of EL in teaching social responsibility has been critiqued. A growing body of literature argues that while the existing pedagogy of teaching social responsibility may equip students with cognitive understanding of sustainability issues, these methods insufficiently develop the critical thinking skills needed to deeply engage with complex social problems (Earle and Leyva -de la Hiz, 2021; Montiel et al., 2018; Mooney and Cockburn, 2024; Shephard, 2008). These arguments foreground that while existing experiential approaches (e.g. debates, role-play) can help students to analyse social problems from multi-stakeholder perspectives, they prioritise developing cognitive empathy and are arguably less effective than other approaches (such as lived experience pedagogy) in generating the affective empathy and emotional resonance needed to motivate social change (Montiel et al., 2018). Similarly, methods like cases or industry guest lectures are often still “taught from the perspective of upper managers and shareholders” which is unlikely to provide an authentic empathetic connection that shapes both cognition and action (Baker, 2017: 583). This is not to say that educators have not used various effective EL techniques in their teaching of sustainability and social responsibility, such as the well-cited Frond Lake role-play exercise which simulates complex decision-making of environmental and ethical issues (Moore et al., 1992). However, novel techniques are needed which foster emotional connection with social and environmental problems.
Given these insights, we explore how emotions and affective empathy can be foregrounded in teaching social responsibility. Scholars writing about sustainability learning (Montiel et al., 2018; Skilling et al., 2024), argue that EL of sustainability issues can generate “inevitable emotional charge” (Skilling et al., 2024: 658), including discomfort, fear, anxiety or anger, which can facilitate learning. Skilling et al. (2024), drawing on Shephard (2008), argued for greater integration of head, hands and heart in teaching social responsibility, defining head as cognitive knowledge, hands as the skills required to act sustainably, and heart meaning that which shapes values and mindsets to drive motivation to act. Beyond cognitive understanding of social problems, emotional connection (heart) is needed to inspire change, yet is often missing in pedagogy (Shrivastava, 2010). Eliciting emotions, particularly “uncomfortable emotions” (Skilling et al., 2024: 660) has the transformative potential “quite literally to move people” into action (Bartunek and Ren, 2022: 506). While discomfort may “help or hinder transformative learning” (Skilling et al. 2024: 660), or make students feel vulnerable or distressed, Skilling et al. (2024) argued that this emotional work is “a necessary part of the journey” (p. 659); focusing only on positive emotions (hope, inspiration) may be insufficient to activate “radical change” (p. 658) needed to address social problems. However, this requires educators to “allow time and space” for students to explore their emotions safely in the learning journey (Skilling et al., 2024: 659). Shifting from cognitive learning of social problems to fostering rich emotional connection in affective learning which inspires change is arguably under-developed in teaching social responsibility (Bartunek and Ren, 2022; Skilling et al., 2024). We next discuss pedagogy of integrating lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged in management education to drive empathetic learning of social responsibility.
Integrating lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged in management education
Learning from lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged
Little attention has been paid in teaching social responsibility around how to shift from building cognitive learning of social problems towards driving effective solutions through affective learning (Greenberg and Hibbert, 2022). To address this, we examine how learning from lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged can generate affective empathetic learning. Moran et al. (2022) defined “lived experience” as a representation of human experiences, including abuse, trauma, marginalisation, or other social disadvantages. The limited integration of this pedagogy in management education is unsurprising given that corporations often overlook the valuable role of lived experiences in shaping CSR or social change agendas (Klein, 2019). Klein (2019) attributed CSR to being largely ineffective because of the limited efforts by businesses to integrate lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged into the design of solutions. Often social change agendas are set internally by leaders without relevant lived experience, or informed by other stakeholders such as employees or customers (Klein, 2022). Lived experience may be considered a form of expertise for the knowledge and insights gained through such experiences (Sandhu, 2017). Many social enterprises place lived experience at the centre of their work, including employing those with relevant lived experience to guide their social change agendas (Farmer et al., 2021; Sandhu, 2017). Such practice is generally not mainstream in business action around social responsibility and, unsurprisingly then, is rarely a focal point in management education.
There is growing evidence of the value of incorporating lived experiences as a form of expert knowledge in teaching and learning. Such pedagogy is common in mental health, nursing, and social work education where people with relevant lived experience of disadvantage share their story with students through guest lectures or storytelling (Moran et al., 2022). Students gain both cognitive knowledge of complex social problems from a holistic, person-centred perspective and empathy through deep compassion in listening to others’ experiences (Dorozenko et al., 2016; Earle and Leyva-de la Hiz, 2021; Howells et al., 2022). Studies in mental health and social work education found this pedagogy reduced stigmatising attitudes, enhanced learning of mental illness, and improved readiness to work in the mental health sector (Arblaster et al., 2023; Irvine et al., 2015). Integrating lived experience may help to refocus management education from purely technical knowledge towards taking a person-centred understanding of social problems and solutions.
The role of empathy in lived experience learning
Incorporating lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged can foster empathy which can transform learning and action. Howells et al. (2022: 1394) argued these perspectives offer “first-hand accounts of what life [is] really like . . . the messiness, the seldom heard and the uncomfortable.” Understanding a problem through the eyes of others can lead to “confrontation with one’s own unconscious defenses” (Kisfalvi and Oliver, 2015: 720), activating an uncomfortable emotional response, which can generate empathy (Baker, 2017; Skilling et al., 2024). While empathy can mean different things across disciplines (Zahavi and Overgaard, 2011), empathy generally refers to the ability to care about another person’s feelings and wanting justice for that person (Katz-Buonincontro, 2015). Cognitive empathy means “the ability to know how another feels” by adopting another’s perspective or point-of-view (Goldman, 1995: 96). Affective empathy is the ability to feel what someone else is feeling, involving “psychological processes that make a person have feelings that are more congruent with another’s situation than with his own situation” thereby shifting their internal emotional state (Hoffman, 2000: 91). Importantly, empathy is not a fixed trait, but a soft skill that can be learned (Baker, 2017; Katz- Buonincontro, 2015).
Rarely is empathy taught as a skill for business or management, being perceived as incongruent with rational, competitive business (Baker, 2017; Katz-Buonincontro, 2015). There are few empirical studies on teaching empathy in management education and social responsibility. Mooney and Cockburn’s (2024) study of empathy developed through a global social impact entrepreneurship field trip is an exception, yet depicts affective learning taking place outside the classroom, rather than bringing lived experiences into the physical space of the classroom. Today’s complex social problems arguably require valuing the transformative effect of emotional connections which, as argued by Baker (2017: 582), “stimulates an expanded search for solutions that have more positive outcomes for those affected by business decisions.” Both cognitive and affective understanding of social issues can enrich learning, however, learning about social responsibility through cognitive empathy, on its own, may be insufficient to change human behaviour; affective empathy is needed as it facilitates deeper emotional engagement with social problems which can inspire social change (Montiel et al., 2018). Experiential learning methods such as incorporating lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged in management education arguably offer a transformative approach for developing empathetic learning and encouraging prosocial behaviour.
Critical questions remain, however, of the extent to which one can truly “know” another person’s lived experiences without necessarily having lived experience of social disadvantage themselves, and ethical considerations around whether one “should” even attempt to step into another’s shoes. Empathy as a skill can be developed by gaining new perspectives and taking on the feelings of others “in short to experience the psychological life of that person” (Zahavi and Overgaard, 2011: 4). However, in a phenomenological sense, “that does not entail that the other’s experience is literally transmitted to you” (Zahavi and Overgaard, 2011: 4). Following Zahavi and Overgaard (2011) and Scheler (1954), the focus of empathy remains on the “other,” rejecting notions that one must literally “walk in the shoes” of another or feel others’ emotions directly as their own in order to understand another’s feelings: In basic empathy the focus is on the other, on his thoughts and feelings, and not on myself, nor on how it would be like for me to be in the shoes of the other (Scheler 1954, xlviii, 39). To experience, say, the emotion of the other differs from the way you would experience the emotion if it were your own. Thus empathy does not entail that we ourselves undergo the emotion we observe in the other. We might, but this is not a requisite. (Zahavi and Overgaard, 2011: 4)
Scholars have sought to identify specific instructional strategies that nurture empathy in students (see Baker, 2017). Hoffman (2000) noted a range of strategies that can be used to “help students see life through the eyes of others” such as films and role-plays, which can build cognitive empathy. However, a more “authentic” way of developing empathy is through direct community engagement where students work “side-by-side” with people from different backgrounds, often those less fortunate, such as through travel or service learning programmes, or internships in not-for-profits (Baker, 2017; Hoffman, 2000). Developing greater empathy through direct community engagement with participants can influence moral judgement as well as foster prosocial behaviour (Baker, 2017).
Nevertheless, it should be noted that while it may be possible to develop deep understanding and compassion for others through close approximation and interpretive learning, empathy cannot provide direct access to someone’s inner world and one can never truly know another’s subjective lived experience by listening to their story (Zahavi and Overgaard, 2011). Other risks and ethical sensitivities may also arise when seeking to learn from marginalised groups, such as perpetuating prejudicial or victim-blaming attitudes among some students (Moran et al., 2022). Greater empathy also may not translate to all students then engaging in prosocial behaviour, creating an ethical dilemma if vulnerable individuals have shared their stories with little meaningful impact (Baker, 2017). A critical concern for educators then is how to design methods that safely, responsibly and effectively develop students’ affective empathy as a learned skill in a way that can inspire prosocial behaviour and the capacity to listen, reflect and meaningfully respond even when there are limits to truly knowing and feeling another person’s lived experiences (Montiel et al., 2018). We next introduce our case study which integrated the LEVEL pedagogy in teaching and learning.
Research approach and methods
This article reports on students’ experiences of participating in a social impact hackathon at an Australian university, which integrated lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged in the learning process. A hackathon is an experiential method where individuals work collaboratively and intensively over 1–2 days to “hack” or solve a complex problem which simulates real-world organisational scenarios (Cwikel and Simhi, 2022). There may be a competitive element where ideas/solutions are judged for innovation. Hackathons originate in programming and computer science fields, but have expanded to work/education settings. While designing a winning solution may be a success measure, other learning outcomes are valuable, such as problem-solving skills and networking (Cwikel and Simhi, 2022). Depending on the hackathon design, there may be capacity to learn from others’ lived experiences to gain a deeper contextual understanding of problems.
Case study: the social impact hackathon
Students participated in a two-day hackathon which occurred in late 2022. Their goal was to work in groups to ideate a business that would generate meaningful employment for people experiencing social disadvantage. Design and organisation of the hackathon was led by two business school academics in collaboration with a staff member from the University’s social justice student volunteering programme. Both academics are experienced tertiary educators and researchers who, in addition to their discipline expertise, have taught ethics and social impact, and regularly engage industry in their teaching. The third collaborator was a university staff member with experience in community engagement and student volunteering. The hackathon was facilitated in partnership with a social enterprise (“Partner Organisation,” PO), supported by university grant funding, whose mission is to improve work outcomes for those experiencing homelessness and social disadvantage. Ethics approval was granted for this project from the UTS Human Research Ethics Committee (ETH22-7225). This partnership was a collaborative rather than co-designed initiative with the PO. Much of the PO’s contribution related to the delivery of key components of the hackathon, such as guest lectures, a lived experience guest speaker panel, and mentoring of students, rather than immersive co-design of the hackathon problem-framing and solutions with educators and students.
The hackathon was a voluntary experience conducted outside class time where participating students could gain credit towards completing requirements of the University’s social justice volunteering programme. This volunteering programme is extra-curricular (not linked to a course or faculty), open to all students, and offers an opportunity to engage in community-focused social impact activities, with certificated recognition for completing set volunteering hours. Hence, participation in the hackathon was entirely voluntary in that students could opt into it (rather than an initiative to opt out of), motivated by interest in volunteering and social justice (see Table 2). Arms-length design of the hackathon and student recruitment was crucial in order to maintain appropriate researcher/educator/student distance given our intention to collect insights on students’ learning outcomes from those who consented. Email invitations to participate in the hackathon were sent by the third collaborator to those students enrolled in the volunteering programme. During the hackathon, students participated in various activities: business planning and social impact evaluation workshops delivered by the academics, a PO lecture on social disadvantage, hearing a panel of three people with lived experience of homelessness share their personal stories, as well as PO mentoring. On the final day, students pitched their business ideas to an expert panel from academia, industry, and the PO. The two academics collaborated with the PO to deliver the hackathon, holding several meetings prior to the hackathon, with terms of engagement formalised in a partnership agreement. The opportunity to hear stories of those with lived experiences of social disadvantage was part of the PO’s social impact programme offering with universities. Thus, the PO had established frameworks and protocols (adhered to by educators/researchers/students) for safe, ethical engagement with lived experience participants, all of whom consented to sharing their stories and were remunerated. Relationship-building, rapport, respect, and mutual understanding was key to this partnership. We followed the PO’s lead with considerable care in terms of ethical standards and practices of engaging lived experience (e.g. having a peer support worker present), kept the PO informed about the design of our hackathon programme, and conducted post-event debriefing.
Most students who registered for the hackathon (n = 47) participated on both days, although there was some drop-off namely due to illness, COVID exposure and work commitments, as well as potential loss of interest in further participation. Demographic data was captured across two surveys conducted directly before and after the hackathon (Table 1). The pre-hackathon survey reported that most students were in their first (36%) or third year (34%) of study, an undergraduate student (91%), identified as female (74%), and studying in the business school as their main faculty (57%). While there is some variation in demographic data, given slightly differing participation across both days, this pattern is consistent in the post-hackathon survey (Table 1).
Study participants.
Methodology
Next we present the methods for gathering and analysing data on students’ motivations for participating in the hackathon, expectations, key learnings, and intended actions after the hackathon. Data was gathered directly from students, enhancing student voice about social impact experiences (Skilling et al., 2024), via two Qualtrics surveys conducted before and after the hackathon, and focus groups. The method followed a Theory of Change approach (Jensen et al., 2025) where quantitative and qualitative data was collected from multiple sources to evaluate students’ experiences and learnings, including understanding key outcomes resulting from interventions and the drivers of change. The pre- and post-hackathon surveys, designed by the researchers, followed a similar line of questioning to track changes in students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviour. A pre-hackathon survey which included 16 closed and one open-ended question was conducted before the hackathon, receiving 47 responses. It asked students about their expectations, their knowledge of homelessness, social disadvantage and social enterprises, and understanding of how to drive change (e.g. What motivated you to register for the hackathon?, What is your understanding of the causes of social disadvantage and marginalisation in Australian society?, What is your understanding of how to take action to contribute to social change?). One further open-ended survey question was asked on the first day, directly after students heard from the lived experience panel, “What are two changes you’ll make to your [business] idea after hearing the lived experience panel?,” receiving 31 responses.
Focus groups were conducted at the end of the second hackathon day, involving 27 students across six project groups, lasting 30 minutes, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The focus groups were facilitated by one of the researchers skilled in qualitative research. Students were asked three broad questions about their learnings: (1) What learnings did you gain about social issues through the hackathon? (2) What did you learn most about yourself through participating in the hackathon? (3) What key takeaways from the hackathon might you enact in the future? Prompts were provided to garner more specific insights (e.g. for Q2, prompts included assumptions that were challenged; for Q3, prompts included intent to volunteer more, or implement their business idea).
A post-hackathon survey was conducted after the hackathon, following focus groups, receiving 27 responses. The survey contained 31 questions: 22 closed, nine open-ended. Questions replicated those from the pre-hackathon survey showed how students’ awareness, understanding or agency changed around disadvantage and social change (e.g. Which skills, if any, do you feel you developed through participating in the hackathon?, What is your current understanding about the needs and experiences of people who have experienced homelessness?, After participating in the hackathon, to what extent do you better understand the causes of social disadvantage and marginalisation?). Seven open questions are relevant for this article, which asked students how their understanding of the needs/experiences of disadvantaged persons changed, feasibility of their project idea being realised, and learnings that could be applied in future studies, career, or everyday life.
Pre- and post-hackathon surveys, which followed a similar line of questioning, allowed us to understand students self-reported changes in their learning from the hackathon as a form of intervention, alongside richer qualitative sources (focus groups) to strengthen insights (Dann et al., 2022). Focus groups (rather than one-to-one interviews) were used to gather contextual insights. While one-to-one interviews can probe individual experiences, focus groups were used for several reasons. Safety and accessibility: We aimed to create an accessible environment for students to safely discuss potentially sensitive topics. We followed other studies using focus groups to learn about university students’ experiences of sensitive topics (e.g. Ning et al., 2024 on mental health issues). Focus groups can foster more relaxed conditions to speak freely compared to one-to-one interviews, aided through students already being acquainted in their project groups, which enhanced rapport and trust, and the facilitator – a skilled qualitative researcher – could carefully moderate sensitive discussion (Ning et al., 2024; Sim and Waterfield, 2019). Information was provided to participants beforehand (e.g. study purpose, anonymity, withdrawal option) to enable informed consent. Richness of data: Focus groups are well-suited to exploring social phenomena via group interaction. Students discussed their opinions, feelings and experiences of the hackathon by adding to others’ responses, enabling discussion to evolve, aided by the facilitator (Liamputtong, 2015). Minimising bias: There is a risk with focus groups of social pressure to conform to ideas or that dominant voices overpower (Sim and Waterfield, 2019). To help minimise bias, we carefully constructed the research design using mixed-methods that incorporated capacity for both individual and group responses. We ran a post-hackathon survey after the focus groups which replicated similar questions to the focus groups, enabling students to provide deeper individual qualitative insights. This approach helped minimise bias in responses that may have arisen from pressure to conform to similar ideas in the group discussions (Sim and Waterfield, 2019). Efficiency: Focus groups can also optimise information obtained about experiences (Liamputtong, 2015). As the hackathon was voluntary and conducted outside class time, we made sure to respect participant time.
Analysis
The first researcher/author led the process of data analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately. The quantitative survey data was analysed first where basic descriptive statistics (e.g. ranking, frequency) were extracted about closed survey responses. Then the researcher analysed the qualitative survey responses and focus group data, using an inductive, data-driven approach to thematic analysis across the data sources (Ezzy, 2003). This involved a process of data familiarisation by initially reading the qualitative responses to the open survey questions and transcripts, then generating open codes, looking for patterns of similarity across data sources, and bringing these codes together into broader thematic categories. The second researcher/author independently reviewed the codes from the qualitative analysis, checking for discrepancies or inconsistencies, which strengthened inter-coder reliability (Ezzy, 2003). Through cross-checking and collaborative discussions, it emerged that integrating lived experience perspectives of the socially disadvantaged appeared important in students’ learnings of social problems. This led the first researcher to re-analyse the qualitative data and develop new codes related to how lived experience pedagogy shaped learning outcomes. Next, the data sources were connected by identifying integration points between qualitative and quantitative data, cross-checked by the second researcher (Creswell and Inoue, 2025). We engaged in a process of recontextualising data alongside reading of literature on RME, EL, and empathy. Through this integrative analysis, key themes were produced (Ezzy, 2003): motivation for student participation, value of learning from lived experience, and enactment of personal agency and social change. Appendix 1 (Coding Table) shows the integration of data sources into categories and themes, as reported in the article.
Findings
This section presents students’ perspectives on their learnings in the hackathon, reporting themes related to motivation and expectations for the hackathon, the value of learning from lived experience perspectives, and students’ intentions around social change.
Motivation, expectations and outcomes of the hackathon
As a voluntary activity, students were asked in the pre-hackathon survey about their motivation for participating as well as their expectations from the hackathon (Tables 2 and 3). Students could select as many reasons as desired to the closed questions. Responses are ranked according to frequency.
Motivation to participate in the hackathon.
Expectations from the hackathon.
Most students stated they were motivated to participate to develop new skills, meet new people, learn more about social impact, increase their volunteering experience, or enhance their CV (Table 2, ranked 1–equal 4, respectively). Importantly, students were not strongly motivated by the desire to address social and environmental issues (ranked 9) or to learn more about social disadvantage and homelessness (ranked 11) despite the programme being advertised as a learning opportunity to address social problems. Students anticipated various outcomes from participation (Table 3). Consistent with their motivations (Table 2), students anticipated gaining employability-related skills such as business planning (ranked 5) and teamwork (ranked 8). However, the top-ranked expectations were increased knowledge of how to address social problems (ranked 1) and greater awareness of social disadvantage (ranked 2). This indicates that though social responsibility was not the main motivator for participating, many were open to engaging meaningfully with these aims once they joined. Qualitative responses to the open pre-hackathon survey question, “Please share anything else about your expectations for the hackathon” reported expectations of learning about social issues (e.g. “improve my understanding of the social world and the issues that come along with it”), and interest to develop teamwork skills (e.g. “aim to learn how to be with a team”).
Students were asked in the post-hackathon survey to reflect on the benefits gained through participation (Table 4). Positive responses to survey items were very high, indicating most students perceived multiple benefits. Highly-ranked were a better understanding of social enterprises (ranked 1), opportunity to meet new people (ranked 2), greater awareness of social disadvantage (ranked 3), and greater knowledge of ideas/actions to address social problems (ranked 4). While skills such as business planning and teamwork were also gained (Table 4), perhaps given the experiential nature of the programme and opportunity to learn from the lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged, more socially-focused outcomes ranked highly as key benefits. We discuss these insights below.
Benefits from participating in the hackathon.
Learning from other’s lived experiences
While several activities in the hackathon helped develop students’ understanding of social problems (e.g. lecture on social disadvantage), responses showed that students’ knowledge of social problems and capacity to design effective solutions was most effectively informed by learning from those with lived experiences of social disadvantage. In the pre-hackathon survey, students reflected on their understanding of causes of social disadvantage. Most reported “moderate” understanding (47%), but for some this was “limited” (33%) or “extremely limited” (11%). Students were asked about their understanding of the needs and experiences of people experiencing homelessness, given this social problem was core to the PO’s work. Most reported “limited” (44%) or “moderate” (40%) understanding, while some had “extremely limited” (8%) understanding, suggesting that understanding of social disadvantage and homelessness was generally low prior to the hackathon.
A unique offering of the PO’s social impact programme was the opportunity to hear from several individuals with lived experiences of homelessness. The panel was conducted towards the end of the first day following group formation, listening to a lecture on social disadvantage, and initial project ideation. In addition to hearing three speakers share their stories of lived experience, students could engage in a question-and-answer session, facilitated by a peer support worker, to discuss their early-formed business idea with the panellists. Students were asked in follow-up surveys to reflect on their learnings from these stories and consider how these insights could shape their team’s business ideas. While not specifically asked in focus groups, the panel was frequently mentioned by students as significantly shaping their learning, which we explore next.
Challenging assumptions of social disadvantage
Insights across the data sources showed the transformative effect of hearing from real-life stories of disadvantage, which shaped students cognitive and affective empathetic learning. In the post-hackathon survey, 85 percent reported gaining “a greater awareness of social disadvantage” (Table 4). In the same survey, students were asked the extent of value gained in hearing from the panel: 89 percent responded “to a considerable amount,” supported by survey responses of cognitive empathetic learning that was developed through challenging their assumptions about homelessness and social disadvantage (gaining “a new perspective on homelessness and marginalisation”), as well as affective learning in hearing real stories (“[to] empathise with the homeless more because the stories are very real,” “learning by experience and [with] others with empathy and openness [has] the most impact”). Students noted how their perceptions of social disadvantage were informed by media representations or prior education and how listening to real stories prompted them to “self-criticise” these assumptions, as explained by a student during the focus group: it really goes back to that thinking that causes a problem in the first place. And I think bringing that mindset into every situation that you do is a lot more thoughtful and it’s a lot more compassionate for the people involved. I think that self-criticism, really reflecting more about the way you think. Challenging those internal biases or assumptions.
The media was notably called out for shaping misinformed views about social problems, which the lived experience stories debunked, transforming students’ cognitive empathy: “Everything I knew before was an assumption or what I’d learnt from media portrayals” (survey) and “our understanding of homeless people in hindsight doesn’t come from homeless people, it comes from media” (focus group). Approaches to learning in school and university were criticised for skewing how social problems were taught. Focus group discussion noted how teaching in business schools was skewed towards an outcomes-focused approach, which failed to encourage deep critical analysis of problems before ideating solutions. In reflecting on this, when asked about assumptions that were challenged through the programme, one student explained that a “quote I resonated with the most” was from Einstein that “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them,” wherein this student critiqued “the types of thinking that lead us to have these issues in the first place.” This student went on to further reflect how certain processes of thinking were reproduced in institutions, which hindered the generation of creative solutions to problems: “I feel like in our institutions and schools, we’re kind of encouraged to think a certain way.” Rejecting a solutions-first bias in tackling social problems could enable more authentic solutions to emerge: I think the [hackathon] program helped me to break down those ideas . . . that I came in with and I wanted to implement . . . I realised I was capable of thinking in a more creative and I guess more of a thoughtful way of the actual circumstances at hand. (Focus group)
As well as assumptions and biases about social disadvantage being challenged through hearing these stories, students also gained new awareness of the complexity of social problems. This was reflected in the post-hackathon survey where understanding of the causes of social disadvantage was reported as improving: 59 percent reported understanding improved “to a considerable amount,” 41 percent reported “somewhat.” Understanding of the needs of people who have experienced homelessness also improved: 56 percent of students reported “moderate” and 44 percent reported “well-developed” understanding. Cognitive empathy was also demonstrated in students’ learning that homelessness was often not due to personal choice, but a combination of complex personal, situational and structural factors: “disadvantage is much more complex than I initially thought” (post-hackathon survey); “As someone who always had the prejudice that it is about choice, I realised that no one chooses homelessness” (post-hackathon survey); “it’s eye opening to know that it’s not a choice” (focus group); “when you see a homeless person . . . some people think that they did something to be in that position” (focus group). Similarly, the lived experience panel revealed the “wide variety” of social disadvantage existing in society: I’d say we mostly categorise society as privileged and unprivileged, but we never know what kind of unprivileged you are. Having the awareness [to] reflect on how deep and wide it is. We can be the agents to actually spread the awareness to other people to educate . . . Cause this is a big issue, so we need to tackle that. (Focus group)
Lived experiences shaping business solutions
These learnings were transformative in helping to shape students’ development of their business ideas. Students were asked in a survey immediately following the panel to describe how insights from these stories could shape their project ideas. Responses emphasised the need to keep the project idea’s “simple,” listening to and empathising with real stories, building safety and trust for users, as well as fostering agency and empowerment for end-users. These insights are unpacked below.
Students reflected on how business solutions to social problems needed to be designed in a simple and accessible way for users: “Keep it simple,” “Keep the idea/business model simple,” “Making sure to integrate simple ways to tackle the major issue we are dealing with.” Designing services that were inclusive and accessible was important, expressed in comments to “Make the business concept simple and inclusive” and “Making it reachable and accessible to [a] niche group of people.” While designing a “simple” solution was ideal, students noted how social problems were highly complex, as learned through the lived experience stories: “In terms of like proposing ideas, it’s actually really difficult, and I’m trying to imagine actual organisations and social enterprises, it must take a lot of time . . . like months, even years, to come up with solutions for a project” (focus group).
Students described in the panel survey and focus groups that a person-centred design of business solutions to social problems required actively listening to end-users’ needs and perspectives: “try and talk to people that are in the target group to get their perspective” (survey); “Speaking with the exact individuals we aim to help so that we have a greater understanding of their situations, needs, goals and desires” (survey); “being able to actually talk to people and get their lived experience is so important. That education is really important for us to actually understand the cause and effect of certain things” (focus group). Active listening also enhanced affective empathy through being open to new approaches: “ensure that respect and a welcoming mind is present in the idea,” “employ empathy more in the idea,” or as simply said by many in the survey “empathy.”
Affective empathy was demonstrated in students describing the emotional connection from hearing the lived experience stories and harnessing this in designing business solutions to social problems: “Listening to what the demographics wants and needs are to help them, rather than projecting what we think they need” (panel survey); “Treat people like people and incorporate them into the solution rather than telling them what to do” (panel survey), “make human connections and listen and build that trust” (focus group). In focus groups, three students described the cognitive empathy developed in taking on new perspectives to design solutions and the transformative effect of affective empathetic learning to truly connect with others’ experiences to learn about problems: I think I definitely came to Day 1 as one of those people that had solutions already in mind and tried to almost make it fit the mold. And then I learnt that it’s really, really important to listen and to understand what they need. It’s very easy to just take the perspective of someone and say “that’s the issue, let’s go with it.” But actually having people come in and talk about those issues gave an extra sense of empathy for them and really putting yourself in the shoes of someone helps to show that the solutions are out there, they’re not working for a certain reason . . . Taking that empathy and perspective really helps you to find a solution that works for a problem. You come up with a much better idea when you end up working with everyone and get opinions from every source that you can, especially those with lived experience.
Students developed cognitive empathy in learning that long-term solutions by business were needed to foster agency and empowerment, rather than narrow short-term outcomes that may perpetuate social problems. This was commented by students in the panel survey: “Ensure it . . . allows for agency and long term support”; “[The] plan needs to not be a one off ‘hand out’ and should instead empower [the] target demographic to be able to help themselves”; and “make sure our idea gives long term, lasting impacts.” Cognitive empathy was also developed through learning that engagement was needed to enhance safety and trust. This is important given evidence of user services (e.g. government programmes) often inadequately engaging persons with lived experience in their design and implementation, leading to poorer outcomes to address social problems (CFE Research, 2020). To “resolve the issue of mistrust in the system,” students noted the need for affective empathy: “build trust,” “consider their safety,” “[focus] on belonging, kindness, empathy–elements to make marginalised people feel human,” and “don’t be pushy and NEVER give false promises” (panel survey). Hence, human connection through affective empathy was vital to address social problems and enact social change, as explained by a student in the focus group: I already spend a fair bit of time volunteering, but noticing that what drives [PO] especially is that human connection. So my [volunteer] work is international and gives me opportunities to go over there and be involved with the community, so putting that in to make human connections and listen and build that trust and be there directly for the community as well.
Enactment of social change
Finally, the study captured how the hackathon informed students’ intentions and capacity to enact social change, and ways this was shaped by cognitive and affective learning of lived experiences. In the pre-hackathon survey, students reflected on their understanding of, and agency to shape, positive social change. Most had either “limited” (44%) or “moderate” (38%) understanding; some had “extremely limited” understanding (11%). When asked in the same survey about their confidence to take action to address social disadvantage, most responded being “somewhat” (58%) confident or “not confident” (27%); few responded “very confident” (11%).
Similar questions were repeated in the post-hackathon survey. Responses showed improved student understanding of how to take action towards social change (48% “extensive,” “48% moderate”) and greater confidence in taking action to address social disadvantage (48% “very confident,” 52% “somewhat confident”). Some of the top-ranked benefits from students’ participation were not only knowledge of how to innovatively address social problems, but ways to put knowledge into action (Table 4). Table 5 outlines students’ self-reported intended actions following the hackathon. Most responses indicated intentions to contribute to their local communities and serve others (e.g. volunteering more, addressing social problems in their community, reported positively by 85% and 81%, respectively), rather than the further development of their business ideas. Only 26 percent of students said they would seek partnerships and 22 percent said they would work with university start-up support, respectively, to develop their business idea. This suggests that rather than the main programme goal (developing a business for social impact) being a (sole) measure of success, informing personal action towards positive social change through a variety of activities was a valued and meaningful outcome. This demonstrates the transformative potential of LEVEL pedagogy and affective learning in shaping and inspiring the social responsibility actions of students, beyond purely business, employability or skills-focused goals.
Anticipated student actions post-hackathon.
Open-ended responses to the post-hackathon survey reflected on how cognitive learning of social disadvantage and affective empathy from real-life stories informed students’ intended actions. This included intended action around: (a) students’ studies (“incorporating social issue perspective[s] and inclusivity to making decisions as a business major”; “That social change and social issues can be at the forefront of everything, including my studies!”), (b) volunteering interest (“It sparked our interest and curiosity to get involved into an actual social enterprise, volunteer more, but also interact more with those vulnerable populations . . . dedicating that spare time for causes that really matters the most is something that I look forward to doing” (focus group)), and (c) views on business and careers (“making better business decisions with social issues in mind”). This reveals how affective learning of social issues can shape intended prosocial behaviour around social change.
Discussion
This article examined how integrating lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged shapes students’ cognitive and affective empathetic learning of social responsibility. Despite academic discourse on RME and industry expectations that business schools prepare students to be ethical, responsible and empathetic leaders (Ambrosini et al., 2023), there remains only nascent understanding of effective pedagogy for teaching social responsibility. Existing pedagogical approaches mainly focus on increasing students’ cognitive understanding of social responsibility (Shephard, 2008), commonly through methods such as lectures and case studies where “human characteristics” of social problems are displaced (Yanow, 2009: 583). In business, CSR programmes are often designed and implemented by leaders who may have limited or no lived experience of such social problems (Klein, 2019). We contribute to the literature on teaching social responsibility through the LEVEL pedagogy, which foregrounds how learning from real-world experiences of social disadvantage can drive affective empathy which inspires action towards social change. In this section, we revisit the two research questions to discuss insights from the study: (1) How does integration of lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged shape students’ affective learning of social responsibility? (2) What implications arise for practice in teaching social responsibility in business schools?
In addressing the first question, the findings reveal that beyond passive learning of subject matter, experiential learning which fosters affective empathy is required to facilitate effective learning of social responsibility and motivate students to enact social change (Hay and Samra-Fredericks, 2019). In this study, students had the opportunity to listen and learn from those with lived experience of homelessness. These real-life stories shaped students’ cognitive and affective empathy and transformed how they addressed social problems through a business lens. Students expressed that their pre-conceived biases and assumptions about social disadvantage were challenged and affective empathy, which developed from human connection, directly informed how they designed their business ideas. Our novel LEVEL pedagogy prompted cognitive reflection about the complex social problem of homelessness as well as an emotional shift – feeling what others feel – which inspired motivations towards social change in studies, careers and everyday life (Bartunek and Ren, 2022; Hay and Samra-Fredericks, 2019). Yet there is a conspicuous absence of lived experience pedagogy in management education, though arguably essential to garner rich, authentic understanding of social problems (Klein, 2019). Existing pedagogic approaches in teaching social responsibility continue to rely on case methods and guest lectures, and to an extent more experiential techniques like internships, which can offer diverse stakeholder perspectives of social responsibility, but may fail to generate the “emotional charge” (Skilling et al., 2024: 658) needed to build affective empathy that inspires change. Privileging rational approaches to business decision-making leaves students with limited appreciation of the critical impact that business decisions have on people’s lives, including vulnerable populations (Glen et al., 2014).
Relational inquiry requires that we learn to both see (cognitive) and feel (affective) the world as viewed and experienced by others (Yanow, 2009). Shrivastava (2010) reminds us that issues of social responsibility are not bound by disciplinary knowledge; a deeper person-centred understanding of social problems is needed (Shrivastava, 2010: 446). Our study revealed that developing cognitive empathy of social problems is an important first step to gaining new perspectives of social problems (Mooney and Cockburn, 2024), such as students having their assumptions about homelessness and social disadvantage challenged. However, affective empathy has the power to shape human behaviour, evident in students’ reflections of their intended prosocial actions and changed approach to tackling social problems, inspired through empathetic learning of the human experience (Cunliffe and Easterby-Smith, 2004). Traditional methods of teaching social responsibility may equip students with cognitive empathetic understanding of issues (head and hands), but affective empathy through human social connection (heart) triggers an internal emotional shift, one potentially uncomfortable, but which has the transformative ability to facilitate social change (Skilling et al., 2024). In the hackathon, students experienced a transformative shift in values and mindset (heart) triggered through listening to, and learning about, the uncomfortable realities of homelessness and social disadvantage from personal lived experience stories, but which inspired change. LEVEL pedagogy is a rich example of enabling a way for students to experience what others’ are feeling and drive an emotional shift which can “catalyse not just students’ knowledge about sustainability and their capacity to act in sustainable ways, but also their motivation and intention to act” (Skilling et al., 2024: 669; also Mooney and Cockburn, 2024).
In exploring how LEVEL pedagogy shaped students’ affective learning, we encourage critical reflection of such pedagogy for driving affective empathy. There is an ethical and reflexive question around the extent to which one can truly take on the feelings and emotions of others and experience a transformative emotional shift (Zahavi and Overgaard, 2011). Our research design used a Theory of Change approach (Jensen et al., 2025) to evaluate change in student knowledge, skill and behaviour. This meant that students self-reported their cognitive and affective empathetic learning, including how their awareness of social disadvantage and capacity to emotionally connect with others with lived experiences of disadvantage was transformed through this learning experience. We note that while LEVEL pedagogy offers a valuable way for students to learn “side-by-side” with vulnerable populations, even if not directly “walking in their shoes,” there are limitations in ever truly knowing another’s lived experience of disadvantage and therefore difficulties in measuring development of empathy as a “skill” or how emotional shifts shape prosocial behaviour.
An ethical question is also raised around “competitive” teaching methods, like hackathons. We drew lived experiences of disadvantage into the classroom as a one-off “intervention” for students, alongside other learning activities. While this provided a problem-focused, time-based way to facilitate EL of social responsibility, hackathons can be criticised for encouraging competitive idea generation that is somewhat removed from end-users, wherein students compete to design the most socially responsible idea. One student response in the pre-hackathon survey even cautioned against competitive approaches to designing solutions to social problems: “Since the purpose is for social change, I would like to think this will not resemble as a normal competition environment, and be more friendly!” This raises an ethical question in pedagogic practice, notably risk of disadvantaged individuals being “Othered” if they are absent from both identifying problems and designing solutions, and where control passes to students to design solutions for vulnerable individuals rather than with them. In our hackathon, we did not revert to those individuals who shared their lived experiences as the short duration of the programme meant that deep co-design was limited. Rather, students’ ideas and solutions were sense-checked through receiving iterative feedback via PO mentorship and presenting their ideas to an expert panel, which included PO representation.
Rather than competitive methods, effective EL of social responsibility requires deep engagement with lived experience experts. In our hackathon, engagement with the PO was at the level of collaboration to deliver the hackathon, rather than immersive co-design. Best practice emphasises co-design processes where individuals with lived experience are systematically involved in both problem identification and solution design, and engaged in ways that are meaningful, safe, sensitive, empowering and impactful (Glen et al., 2014; Zeivots et al., 2024). Co-design is valuable for integrating voices of individuals and stakeholders with different needs and expertise “in ways that empower and enhance the outcomes of projects” (Zeivots et al., 2024: 771), beyond competitive methods. Such a co-design occurs in other disciplines. For instance, Taffe et al.’s (2018: 108) study involved healthcare students working with seniors in co-designing prototypes for assistive technologies, which generated innovative co-designed products for end-users and de-stigmatised ageing. In Arblaster et al.’s (2023) study of students co-designing teaching resources with people with lived experiences of mental health recovery, co-design enhanced product quality and delivered personal benefits for participants in contributing to resource development. Such a co-design approach is nascent in management education and social responsibility teaching, running a risk that business schools are inadequately preparing students, as future business leaders entrusted with enacting social responsibility, without meaningful engagement with the voices of people affected by business decisions (Klein, 2019).
In revisiting the second research question, our study reveals key learnings and implications for teaching practice. Despite challenges of simulating complex real-world situations in classrooms, there is very little scholarship informing business school educators’ responsible enactment of EL (Mantai and Huber, 2021; Wright et al., 2019). We address this gap by discussing how educators might ethically and practically incorporate LEVEL pedagogy into practice. We discuss four themes: (a) institutional barriers to integrating such pedagogy and supports needed, (b) ethical considerations, (c) educator training and capacity-building, and (d) developing student literacies on safe, respectful interaction with vulnerable individuals. Each theme includes several guiding principles to assist educators and institutions put these insights into practice safely, responsibly, and resourcefully.
Enhance institutional support, resources, and values-based commitment
Institutional barriers can shape how educators incorporate real-world experiences to enhance students’ learning. Summative assessment or student expectations about grades or employability can place a narrow focus on results-focused learning (Skilling et al., 2024). Experiential learning is time- and resource-intensive and implementation at scale can be challenging, particularly in large classroom settings (Mantai and Huber, 2021). Although our study brought lived experiences into the classroom, there are structural and resource limitations, such as partner organisations lacking capacity for sustained engagement. Foundational institutional support is required to embed EL initiatives, like integration of lived experiences, into management education, underpinned by a cultural shift which values social impact learning (Dorozenko et al., 2016). Educators should also be guided by partner organisations’ requirements, and limitations, particularly in co-designed learning processes which require long-term engagement, ongoing dialogue, trust-building, and commitment (Taffe et al., 2018).
Safeguard ethical integration of individuals with lived experiences
While lived experience pedagogy can help build students’ affective empathy, a core guiding principle is that educators must carefully consider ethical implications to safeguard vulnerable individuals. Costa et al. (2012: 93) cautions risk of personal stories of disadvantage becoming commodified where “stories have become a kind of pornography.” Power imbalances may also arise (Arblaster et al., 2023). Lived experience needs to be integrated in a safe, non-tokenistic way which provides individuals’ sharing their stories with respect, recognition, and remuneration (Howells et al., 2022). Partnership is recommended with organisations involved in this type of work with set protocols and frameworks on safe, ethical engagement with lived experience in learning activities with care and consent (Zeivots et al., 2024). For example, in following PO protocols, the lived experience panel in our case was facilitated by a peer support worker and participants were remunerated for their contribution. Learning experiences should also meaningfully engage and empower participants through participatory co-design in educational projects which helps to bring lived experience into the classroom as a form of expert knowledge and address power imbalances (Arblaster et al., 2023).
Strengthen educator training, development and reflexivity
Educator training and capacity-building for integrating lived experience pedagogy is crucial, given there is currently no blueprint in management education (Irvine et al., 2015). Despite scholarship encouraging EL, Dean et al. (2020) reminds us that business school educators are not normally required to be qualified or trained in facilitating experiential activities or co-designed projects. We recommend a guiding principle being that institutions and business schools develop frameworks which provide instructions for safe, ethical and sensitive engagement with lived experience in teaching practice, co-designed with partner organisations. Such guidance could be leveraged from other disciplines like healthcare where this pedagogy is more advanced (Arblaster et al., 2023; Taffe et al., 2018). Conferences and communities of practice could also provide forums for management educators to exchange learnings and develop capabilities. Power and positionality of educators in relation to individuals with lived experience also needs consideration. While the educator is commonly deemed the expert with technical knowledge, drawing upon lived experience as a source of expert knowledge requires educators to reframe their understanding of expertise and give up some of their power to others (Arblaster et al., 2023; Sandhu, 2017). Reflexive educator practice is important here as part of ongoing professional learning to evaluate and strengthen practice.
Develop student literacies around safe and respectful learning with stakeholders
Literacies of students need to be developed around sensitive interaction with vulnerable individuals (Irvine et al., 2015). With the educator no longer the sole expert in the learning context, power is transferred to students at the receiving end of learning. A guiding principle is that ground rules need to be established for respectful listening and safe interactions in learning (Cunliffe and Easterby -Smith, 2004). Emotions may also be highly activated in EL or triggered in learning about social problems, leading to discomfort, distress or anxiety (Skilling et al., 2024). Educators need to be aware of the emotional burden that may be placed on students from affective learning. We recommend prioritising safety by taking steps to mitigate harm or discomfort, including through prevention-based content warnings, debriefing, and counselling support (Dean et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2019). In our case, students were informed that the session could be emotionally challenging and had the option to step away if needed. Following the lived experience panel, students completed structured reflections and dialogue with facilitators, which supported safe reflective learning.
Limitations and future research
While this study provides valuable insights for integrating LEVEL pedagogy in management education, we note some limitations around methodology and sample. While our data helped explore students’ cognitive and affecting learning by prioritising student voice in data collection (Skilling et al., 2024), future studies may benefit from more immersive participatory research (e.g. in-depth qualitative interviews) to gain deeper contextual understanding of students’ learning processes (Liamputtong, 2015; Taffe et al., 2018). The study also relied on students’ self-reported changes in their empathy through researcher-designed surveys. Incorporating validated scales of empathy in the research design and using control groups may help to more rigorously measure changes in empathy (see Baker, 2017). Further to this, our study tracked overall cohort trends about empathetic learning across the data, rather than changes at the individual level. We recommend future studies use unique identifier codes to track the effect of interventions and changes in individual students’ level of empathy at each data collection point. This approach would go some way to understanding how students develop empathetic concern via interventions, while noting limitations that exist in ever truly knowing or feeling another’s subjective lived experiences (Zahavi and Overgaard, 2011). Regarding sample bias, we note more female students (74%) opted-in to the hackathon compared to males (19%). Research shows there are gendered differences in prosocial behaviour (Einolf, 2011). Our study followed this gendered pattern. As is common with university-based volunteering programmes, evidence shows that typically more women engage in emotionally reflective and prosocial educational experiences, including volunteering and social impact work (Einolf, 2011). While we did not discern distinct gendered patterns in the analysis of data or results, our findings may not fully represent how all students would respond to similar pedagogical interventions. However, they may be more generalisable to how female students engage with EL about social disadvantage.
Further, regarding the sample, as the hackathon was a voluntary initiative that students across the University could opt into (and included many students already enrolled in the University’s student social justice volunteering programme), it is likely that those with predisposed interest in volunteering, community engagement and social justice registered to participate (supported to some extent by Table 2: motivations). This may have shaped the study outcomes, notwithstanding the transformative impact of affective learning through lived experience pedagogy felt by students. This is similar to Mooney and Cockburn’s (2024) study where students self-selected into a social impact experience likely due to greater interest in social impact. It is possible that those students who chose not to participate (to whom an invitation was extended) would have received even more benefit from participating in the programme and developing their affective empathy. Cotton et al.’s (2021) study provided evidence of the need to mainstream opportunities for affective learning of social responsibility. Their study of students who opted-in to finance ethics electives in business courses found that students with already poor moral judgement do not actively seek ethics training to improve their moral judgement. This emphasises the need to mainstream affective EL in business courses for all students to capture cohorts with different interests and motivations. Future studies could discern impacts of affective learning on a more standardised cohort of students.
Future studies could also examine the translation of LEVEL pedagogy from teaching into the business world to understand how this shapes business strategy around social responsibility. Future studies could also capture the value and benefits of co-design learning from the perspective of lived experience experts themselves, beyond collaboration with facilitators which was the case in our hackathon (Arblaster et al., 2023; Taffe et al., 2018). As our study focused on understanding students’ affective learning, our research design collected data only from students, rather than from individuals who shared their lived experience with students. Gathering these additional viewpoints may provide valued insights into the impact of co-designed learning around social responsibility and the benefits flowing to participants from co-designing solutions, as well as elevate and centre the voice of lived expertise in teaching and learning (Sandhu, 2017; Taffe et al., 2018).
Conclusion
Business schools are responsible for preparing students to be responsible, ethical and empathetic leaders. Despite a growing body of scholarship on the teaching and learning of social responsibility, debate continues around how educators build not only students’ cognitive awareness of social/environmental problems and solutions, but their agency to drive social change. This study has contributed a novel LEVEL pedagogy in teaching social responsibility, documenting how lived experiences of social disadvantage builds affective empathy and motivation towards addressing social problems. In this study, hearing individuals’ stories of disadvantage was transformative in increasing students’ understanding of social problems and agency to enact social change. Yet, pedagogy which involves lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged remains overlooked in management education and in business contexts generally. As the expectation for responsible, ethical business practice grows, it is hoped that business schools will move towards centering lived experiences of the socially disadvantaged as a legitimate and valuable method for learning about and enacting social responsibility.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
| Quantitative data (surveys) | Qualitative codes (surveys, focus groups) | Qualitative quotes (examples) | Categories | Themes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -Anticipated new skills (e.g. teamwork, business planning) | -Joining hackathon to learn new skills -Joining hackathon to learn about social impact |
“aim to learn how to be with a team” (pre-hackathon survey) | Motivation for participation | Motivation, expectations and outcomes of participation |
| -Expected outcomes (e.g. knowledge of social disadvantage, various skills) | - Expecting to develop employability skills (e.g. problem-solving) - Expecting to gain new knowledge (e.g. addressing social problems) |
“improve my understanding of the social world” (pre-hackathon survey) | Expectations from the hackathon | |
| - Benefits from participation (e.g. meeting new people, awareness of social problems, new skills) | - Opportunity to meet new people - Gaining a better awareness of social disadvantage - New understanding of social enterprises - New skills (e.g. business planning, pitching) |
“problem solving” (post-hackathon survey)
“True empathy for social disadvantage” (post-hackathon survey) |
Benefits from participation |
|
| - Level of understanding of causes of social disadvantage - Level of understanding of needs of homeless people |
- Limited awareness of the causes of social disadvantage - Limited or low awareness of homelessness |
“As an international student, I am not very knowledgeable about the social issues in Australia” (pre-hackathon survey) | Awareness of social disadvantage |
Value of learning from lived experiences |
| n/a | - The media plays a role in shaping perceptions of social disadvantage - Our education plays a role in shaping views of social disadvantage - I have biases/misunderstanding about causes of social disadvantage |
“that self-criticism, really reflecting more about the way you think” (focus group)
“As someone who always had the prejudice that it is about choice, I realised that no one chooses homelessness” (post-hackathon survey) |
Assumptions/biases of social disadvantage |
|
| - Extent of value in hearing from the lived experience panel | - Keeping project ideas simple - The value of listening to real stories - How empathy should shape business ideas - The role of trust and safety in engaging with persons with lived experience |
“You come up with a much better idea when you end up working with everyone and get opinions from every source that you can, especially those with lived experience” (focus group) | Role of lived experience in shaping business solutions | |
| - Level of understanding to take action for social change | - I gained new knowledge to enact social change - Social change can be at the fore of my studies |
“I really aim to . . . get inspiration on taking action towards creating social impact in the right way.” (pre-hackathon survey) | Understanding of social change |
Enacting social change |
| - Level of confidence to address social disadvantage | - Feeling more confident to address social disadvantage - More inspired to address social problems in my local community |
“I feel more confident in my ability to make social change” (post-hackathon survey) | Confidence to enact social change |
|
| - Extent of contributing to future social change | - My learnings have encouraged me to take future action - I intend to volunteer more - I intend to work with a social enterprise in the future - Time is a barrier to doing social change |
“It sparked our interest and curiosity to get involved into an actual social enterprise” (post-hackathon survey) | Intended social action post-hackathon |
Acknowledgements
We thank the partner organisation of this research for their time and resources, including the lived experience participants, as well the judging panel and students who participated in the hackathon. We also thank Alex Connor for her contributions to the hackathon event and grant project. Thank you to Dr Najmeh Hassanli and Dr Adam Cohen for their feedback on an earlier draft of the paper.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was granted for this project from the UTS Human Research Ethics Committee (ETH22-7225).
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by UTS Centre for Social Justice and Inclusion and UTS Business School.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.