An emerging framework for humanitarian learning
We've had the privilege of designing learning programmes with organisations working across some of the world's most complex humanitarian contexts. Learning programmes typically start by thinking about the curriculum. What do people need to know? How should we structure the learning? Which activities will help people build confidence and apply new ideas in practice?
These are the questions instructional design helps us answer, and they remain fundamental. Educational theory has spent decades helping us understand how people learn, from Piaget's work on constructing knowledge through experience to Bloom's taxonomy, which reminds us that meaningful learning extends beyond understanding to application, analysis and creation.
Looking back, however, we've realised that many of the decisions that shaped our programmes weren't really about the curriculum at all. They were about participation.
Our conversations increasingly centred on questions such as:
- Could someone realistically complete a module while balancing work, caring responsibilities and unreliable connectivity?
- Would they recognise themselves in the examples and scenarios?
- Would they feel confident enough to contribute if English wasn't their first language?
- Could they pause their learning when life inevitably got in the way and return without feeling left behind?
None of these questions changed what we wanted people to learn. Instead, they changed the conditions that made learning possible. We weren't only designing learning experiences. We were also designing participation.
Looking at learning through a different lens
Reflecting on this work, we've started using the term participation architecture to describe the intentional design of the conditions that enable meaningful participation in learning.
We don't see this as a replacement for instructional design; the two are complementary.
- Instructional design helps us think about how people learn.
- Participation architecture encourages us to think about whether people can realistically participate in that learning in the first place, and what needs to be true for that participation to feel accessible, safe and meaningful.
Together, they offer a more systemic approach to designing learning.
As we've reflected on different programmes, we've noticed the same questions appearing again and again. We don't see them as a finished methodology, but they have become a useful way for us to think about designing learning in humanitarian contexts.
| Design consideration | The question it asks |
|---|---|
| Representation | Who is helping shape the learning, and whose expertise is informing it? |
| Access | Can people realistically participate regardless of language, technology, disability or connectivity? |
| Safety | Do participants feel able to contribute, ask questions and experiment without fear of getting things wrong? |
| Flexibility | Can learning adapt to people's lives and changing circumstances, rather than expecting people to adapt to the learning? |
| Relevance | Do participants recognise themselves, their organisations and their realities in the learning experience? |
| Agency | Does the learning create opportunities for participants to adapt, influence and apply what they learn within their own contexts? |
These questions encourage us to think beyond content and consider the wider learning system. They don't tell us what to teach. They help us think about what enables learning to happen.
What this looked like in practice
One of the programmes that shaped this thinking most was the 2026 Digital Gender Inclusion and Innovation Bootcamp, co-created with UNHCR Innovation. The Bootcamp supports women-led, refugee-led and community-based organisations to strengthen the knowledge, skills and organisational capabilities they use to advance digital gender equality in their communities.
Demand for the programme was clear. The open call received almost 700 applications. The final cohort brought together 82 women from 49 organisations across 33 countries and six regions, learning together in English, Arabic, French and Spanish. Participants brought different ages, backgrounds, experiences and accessibility requirements into one global learning community.
At first glance, it would be easy to describe the Bootcamp as eight online modules supported by live learning sessions. In reality, much of the design effort happened before the curriculum was ever finalised.
The co-creation group brought together 16 women with direct experience supporting forcibly displaced and stateless women and girls. They worked alongside us throughout the design process, using voice notes, WhatsApp conversations, videos, polls and asynchronous feedback to shape the learning priorities and the conditions that would make participation accessible, relevant and meaningful.
The feedback panel members brought an additional layer of review, strengthening the language, scenarios and accessibility of the learning.
What struck us was that their feedback rarely focused on adding more content. Instead, it focused on removing barriers.
They wanted shorter lessons with clearer headings and simpler language. They wanted examples that reflected the realities of community organisations rather than generic case studies. They wanted activities with clear instructions, practical templates and enough support to build confidence before applying new ideas. They wanted flexibility to learn around work, family responsibilities and unreliable connectivity, while still being able to revisit content when they needed it.
Those conversations influenced hundreds of design decisions. Lessons became shorter and more focused. Modules could be paused and revisited. Media was optimised for lower-bandwidth environments. Mobile responsiveness, captions, text alternatives and plain language became core design considerations rather than accessibility features added at the end. Language, scenarios and case studies were continually refined with co-creators so they reflected the realities of organisations working across different humanitarian settings.
Looking back now, it's easy to see how many of those decisions relate to the questions within participation architecture. Representation came through co-creation. Access shaped decisions about language, technology and accessibility. Safety influenced the tone of activities and facilitation. Flexibility changed how people moved through the programme. Relevance strengthened the language and examples. Agency ensured that every module finished with participants identifying practical ways to adapt the learning within their own organisations.
None of this replaced instructional design. It simply expanded our understanding of what good learning design needed to consider.
Designing for action
These ideas also shaped the learning experience itself.
Each module followed the Here I Am Learning Playbook, guiding participants through four connected stages: Learn, Practise, Reflect and Adopt. Rather than ending with understanding, every module encouraged participants to consider how they would use what they had learned within their own organisation and community.
The programme combined eight self-paced modules with five live sessions, recognising that different types of learning serve different purposes. The modules allowed participants to learn at their own pace, while the live sessions created opportunities for discussion, peer learning and connection across organisations working in very different contexts.
One of the most encouraging outcomes was seeing how participants planned to take the learning forward. Many described sharing the content with colleagues, redesigning programmes using human-centred design, strengthening digital safety initiatives and delivering workshops within their own organisations and communities.
The feedback reflected this. For example, participants from the UNHCR Bootcamp reported an overall satisfaction score of 4.81 out of 5, with 96% rating their experience 4 or 5 out of 5. Every participant said the learning would be useful to their organisation, and every participant felt confident applying what they had learned. Later this year, the eight self-paced modules will be made freely available through DisasterReady, extending access well beyond the original cohort.
Looking ahead
Reflecting on this work has left us with a simple observation. Instructional design remains essential, but in humanitarian contexts it may only tell part of the story. Alongside questions about curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, we also need to think carefully about the conditions that make participation possible.
Who gets to shape the learning? Who is unintentionally excluded? What enables people to contribute with confidence? How do we design learning that fits around people's realities rather than asking people to fit around ours? And how do we create learning experiences that people can carry back into their organisations and communities?
For us, participation architecture is simply a way of keeping those questions visible. We hope it provides a useful starting point for others designing learning in similarly complex environments, and we look forward to seeing how the idea evolves through conversation, challenge and practice.
Because meaningful learning doesn't begin when someone opens the first module. It begins much earlier, with the choices we make about who can participate, how they participate and whether we've designed learning around the realities of their lives.
