World Heritage Education (WHE) is an important platform for promoting intercultural dialogue in informal learning contexts. Researchers argue that by connecting historical narratives with contemporary social issues and individual memories through creative methods, WHE provides valuable opportunities for capacity building, mutual understanding, critical thinking, and fostering cultural empathy (Smith, 2006; Winter, 2013). This positions WHSs as shared spaces for integration, connecting heritage educators, local communities, and individuals from diverse backgrounds, including refugees and migrants.

As Smith (2022) observes, the interpretation and education of World Heritage Sites (WHSs) have historically privileged elite Western narratives, and emphasise materiality and intrinsic values, leaving little room for diverse cultural perspectives and personal connections. This approach has long ignored marginalised voices and constrained opportunities for broader participation and meaningful engagement with WHSs, and values co-creation.

To address this knowledge gap, this study adopts the co-creation theory in WHE to understand the worldviews, and unique interpretations of WHSs and the special needs of refugee learners, developing innovative methodologies to address linguistic and conceptual barriers, and critically examining existing bias within WHS interpretation.

Co-creation theory offers a useful perspective for creating more inclusive models of WHE. As a process that is driven by values and sensitive to context, it enables the design of services and approaches that directly address the needs of stakeholders while fostering innovation in heritage education. (Akhilesh, 2017). Integrating diverse perspectives into heritage narratives not only fosters a sense of belonging among learners from varied cultural backgrounds but also allows WHSs to critically evaluate their interpretations and educational approaches to ensure they fulfil their universal responsibilities.

This research applies the Service Logic framework (Grönroos & Voima, 2013) to develop a WHSs value co-creation model. This framework identifies three key spheres in the learning process:

1. Provider Sphere: WHSs prepare learning resources and facilities, creating the potential for future value.
2. Joint Sphere: Direct interactions between learners and WHSs facilitate the co-creation of value. During this stage, both value co-creation and value co-destruction can occur. Value co-creation refers to the process where multiple stakeholders actively contribute to creating value through shared experiences and interactions. On the other hand, value co-destruction happens when these interactions lead to negative outcomes or a reduction in value due to misunderstandings, conflicts, or exclusion among stakeholders.
3. Learner Sphere: Learners generate ‘value-in-use’ by independently integrating WHS offerings with their worldviews (identity, memory, understanding of history, sense of belonging, and knowledge).
Previous research highlights the critical role of the joint sphere, where visitors’ interactions and experiences with the resources provided determine the overall value of heritage sites (Minkiewicz, Evans & Bridson, 2014). Effective resource integration has been identified as vital in this value creation process, as it can lead to either value co-creation or value co-destruction (Winston et al., 2022; Plé & Chumpitaz Cáceres, 2010).

Building on this theoretical framework, the study explores ethical and effective pedagogical approaches for refugees, aiming to identify the factors that promote value co-creation and those that contribute to value co-destruction, using these findings to enhance the interpretation and educational potential of WHSs. Key objectives include:

1. Identifying the factors of value co-destruction in the provider and joint spheres.
2. Developing creative methodologies that effectively foster resource integration in the joint sphere.
3. Constructing frameworks to promote value co-creation while transferring the factors of value co-destruction to the momentum to reshape heritage interpretation.

This study employs Participatory Action Research (PAR) and creative methods to conduct two workshops at the Antonine Wall, a World Heritage Site (WHS) in Scotland.

With the aim to transform WHE, this study employs a co-creation model through Participatory Action Research (PAR). Engaging individuals from refugee or asylum seeker backgrounds, supporters of refugee integration, and heritage educators (N=18). The PAR cycle consists of four steps: 1. Identifying Problems and Common Goals: Participants voice challenges faced in heritage education and express their goals. This phase fosters collective exploration and action. 2. Planning an intervention: We planned actions at the WHSs, implementing creative methods that promote intercultural dialogue and engage participants in shaping heritage interpretation. 3. Implementing the intervention: Then we took the actions on-site. The workshops were designed to welcome everyone’s worldviews, helping participants to know the current interpretation of the WHSs, connecting their learning to their prior knowledge and experience, and make meaning of the places in creative ways. 4. Reflection and Evaluation: Ongoing reflection throughout the cycles enables participants to evaluate their learning experiences and the effectiveness of the strategies employed. Focused on the Antonine Wall WHS—a site embodying both the power and fragility of Roman imperial ambition—the study raises critical questions of representation and narrative. In collaboration with the Hunterian and the Auld Kirk Museum between 2022 and 2024, two workshops were conducted employing storytelling and Reader's Theatre techniques. The first workshop used the Antonine Wall display at the Hunterian Museum alongside digital tools to evoke emotional engagement with the site. Storytelling enabled the exploration of varied historical perspectives, such as those of Roman soldiers, a Caledonian girl, and enslaved individuals, while participants shared their interpretations, critiques, and personal reflections. Building upon this, the second workshop developed three narratives that were performed during a visit to the Antonine Wall in Kirkintilloch. Through readers theatre activities, participants explored their roles within the stories and reflected on the broader implications of the narratives. Both the process and reflections were recorded and journaled. An evaluation and thematic analysis were conducted after the workshops.

The findings of this study provide a practical guide for engaging refugees in WHE and construct a value co-creation framework for WHSs. The research identifies physical barriers such as financial difficulties and limited mobility, as well as language and cultural differences that hinder refugees' comprehension of heritage materials. Current WHS interpretations often cater to English speakers and assume a grounding in Western contexts, distancing participants from the narratives presented. This underscores the urgent need for more inclusive interpretative frameworks. Additionally, the research highlights the importance of including the voices of marginalised groups in heritage interpretation. It proposes a worldview-oriented framework consisting of four key steps: welcoming diverse perspectives, exploring new information, connecting learning experiences, and creating value for WHSs. This approach fosters intercultural dialogue and knowledge sharing. Creative methods such as storytelling, visual symbols, and readers' theatre are integral to enhancing emotional engagement and supporting multilingual learning. Finally, the study constructs a value co-creation framework through PAR, emphasising collaborative approaches that cater to diverse stakeholder experiences. This research promotes effective, ethical, and inclusive WHE, creating environments where marginalised voices are valued. By doing so, individuals who have faced cultural capital deprivation can regain their agency and enrich their learning experiences. This research has its limitations in its scale and length because of time and financial constraints. Future research could explore the long-term impacts of these frameworks and methodologies, further enhancing inclusivity in heritage education.

Akhilesh, K.B. (2017) Co-Creation and Learning. SpringerBriefs in Business. New Delhi, Springer India. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-3679-5. Grönroos, C. & Voima, P. (2013) Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of Value Creation and Co-Creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 41, 133–150. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3. Minkiewicz, J., Evans, J. & Bridson, K. (2014) How do consumers co-create their experiences? An exploration in the heritage sector. Journal of Marketing Management. 30 (1–2), 30–59. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2013.800899. Plé, L. & Chumpitaz Cáceres, R. (2010) Not always co‐creation: introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic L. Harris & R. Russell‐Bennett (eds.). Journal of Services Marketing. 24 (6), 430–437. doi:10.1108/08876041011072546. Smith, L. (2022) Heritage, the power of the past, and the politics of (mis)recognition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 52 (4), 623. https://www.academia.edu/82674776/Heritage_the_power_of_the_past_and_the_politics_of_mis_recognition. Smith, L. (2006) Uses of Heritage. 1st edition. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203602263. Winston, E., Ferdous, A.S., Rentschler, R., Azmat, F. & Robertson, N. (2022) Value creation process and outcomes in social inclusion focused services. European Journal of Marketing. 56 (3), 840–868. doi:10.1108/EJM-10-2020-0791. Winter, T. (2013) Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 19 (6), 532–545. doi:10.1080/13527258.2012.720997.