Conceptual framework and shared language
The first session is dedicated to framing key societal concepts and agreeing on a comprehensive conceptual framework that serves as a shared reference for work and learning. This framing aims to build a common language that helps reduce ambiguity, enhance mutual understanding, and enable productive dialogue among actors with diverse backgrounds and experiences. The conceptual framework seeks to clarify core concepts and define their meanings as they are understood and practiced within the local context, thereby opening space for conscious intersections, contributing to the organization of dialogue, and guiding collective action. Through this initial agreement, a foundation is established that allows subsequent discussions to evolve and for cumulative knowledge to be built in a way that strengthens coherence without constraining or eliminating difference.
Today, issues of employment, the social economy, socially oriented entrepreneurship, and the cultural and creative industries are being reconsidered as interrelated fields that cannot be approached in isolation from one another. Practical experience in Jordan shows that these axes converge in everyday working spaces, where concepts of opportunity, value, sustainability, and cooperation are tested outside traditional frameworks of employment, entrepreneurship, or cultural and creative production. From this reality emerges a central and foundational question for the desired national learning model: do these four axes, taken together, constitute a space conducive to shared learning and collaborative action through which knowledge rooted in the Jordanian context can be produced? Or do they remain merely adjacent labels lacking a unifying learning framework?
This question seeks to open space for reflection, learning from experience, and deconstructing existing practices as knowledge material that can be built upon in formulating a national learning model that emerges from reality and is developed through dialogue and collective practice. This initiative is grounded in the belief in the necessity of building an inclusive space that brings together all actors, based on solidarity as a daily practice, mutual respect, and genuine cooperation, within a clear value system that upholds tolerance, support, and the avoidance of exclusion or mutual weakening. This space does not presume uniformity; rather, it embraces diversity and difference as sources of strength, provided they are managed within a framework of respect and shared responsibility.
There is today an urgent need to work together and to reestablish a sound foundation that has eroded or been effectively absent in practice. This requires engaging with all parties as potential partners within this ecosystem -not as rivals or adversaries- and enabling an active role for each actor, regardless of differences in position or approach. The absence of a culture of cooperation and mutual support among actors may be a temporary reality that can be changed through shared learning and trust-building. The ongoing aggression against Gaza since 7 October 2023 has once again highlighted the inevitability of this path, clearly revealing that fragmentation is no longer an option and that individual or isolated action is no longer sufficient to confront complex challenges. As a society, as institutions, and as diverse initiatives, we all find ourselves rowing in the same direction, even if our positions and roles differ. From here, the need for cooperation, mutual support, and solidarity becomes not merely an ethical choice but a fundamental condition for building a resilient and sustainable national learning model.
Despite the wide presence and significant influence of some active entities and organizations in the public sphere, there is a noticeable absence or weakness in the integration of the concept of the social economy within their work agendas and implementation approaches. This absence does not necessarily stem from explicit rejection; rather, it often results from not considering the social economy a priority, or from treating it as marginal or secondary compared to other, more prevalent or formally recognized economic models. This gap leads to a fragmented approach, where issues of employment, sustainability, and local development are separated from the logic of solidarity, cooperative work, and social value. It also limits the possibility of building more inclusive pathways that draw on existing experiences and strengthen integration among actors instead of reproducing fragmented efforts. Hence, there is a clear need to reintegrate the social economy into public discourse as a practical framework capable of enriching policies, expanding intervention tools, and creating alternatives more closely connected to the local social and economic reality.
The desire to adopt the term “learning community” arises from the conviction that what we seek goes beyond organizing meetings or producing isolated outputs. In this path, we are as concerned with learning together as we are with what we ultimately reach. Learning here is the essence of the journey itself, not a stage preceding action nor a complementary activity. The term “learning community” reflects a commitment to moving forward together and to viewing this path as a collective journey shaped through dialogue, experimentation, and continuous reflection. In this journey, it is not assumed that any single party possesses complete knowledge, nor that the destination is clear from the outset. Rather, understandings are built gradually, hypotheses are tested in practice, and questions are reformulated with each step forward. This concept also emphasizes that value lies not only in final outcomes, but in the learning process itself: in building trust, exchanging experiences, the ability to listen to differences, and transforming shared experience into knowledge that can be shared and accumulated. From this perspective, the “learning community” becomes a framework that allows us to move together and learn from the path itself.
An inclusive national space… within a clear value framework
This pathway, as a contribution to formulating a Jordanian national learning model, is grounded in the belief in the necessity of building an inclusive space that accommodates diverse actors across the fields of the social and solidarity economy, the cultural and creative industries, employment, and socially oriented entrepreneurship. It is a space that allows engagement and contribution without exclusion or prior classification, and that treats diversity in experience, position, roles, and approaches as a fundamental pillar for producing knowledge rooted in the Jordanian reality.
However, this inclusivity is not understood as intellectual or ethical neutrality. The national model we seek to help shape is based on clear value boundaries that regulate the forms of engagement and cooperation and define the ethical framework within which this pathway operates. In light of the profound political and ethical transformations the world is witnessing -particularly following the aggression against Gaza- it becomes necessary to acknowledge that certain forms of cooperation or partnership may conflict with fundamental human values. This calls for principled stances, which may include setting clear limits or adopting forms of cultural boycott, to preserve the coherence of the model with its guiding principles.
This model, therefore, is founded on responsible national inclusivity that balances openness to plurality with commitment to values. It enables each actor to find their place and role within the ecosystem according to their capacities, circumstances, and context, without imposing a single mode of participation or a single learning pathway. The desired national learning does not seek to unify voices, but rather to organize differences, build a shared language, and produce collective knowledge capable of guiding joint action, without compromising the principles upon which this pathway is built.
The logic of clusters and value chains
Striving for complementarity rather than competitiveness
This pathway stems from a fundamental conviction that competitiveness, in its traditional form, is no longer sufficient on its own to respond to the complexity of the current economic and creative reality. There is a growing need to transform the logic of competition into a logic of complementarity, based on recognizing the interdependence of roles and the fact that value is produced collectively. From here emerges the concept of clusters as a practical framework for joint action. A cluster is not based on similarity, but on interconnection; it brings together diverse actors around a single product or a shared value chain. In this context, no single actor works across the entire value chain; rather, each contributes to one or more components of it, according to their expertise, role, and capacity. An actor may be present at more than one stage at the same time, reflecting the complex nature of creative and social work.
Growth in this context is not achieved solely through individual expansion; it necessarily requires intersection and cooperation with other actors, whether individuals, initiatives, or institutions. The greater the aspiration for expansion and sustainability, the greater the need to build complementary relationships that redistribute roles within the value chain, instead of duplicating or exhausting efforts. From this perspective, the need emerges for a learning and organizational model that reorganizes these relationships in order to clarify points of intersection, spaces of cooperation, and mechanisms for transitioning from individual work to work within clusters capable of producing sustainable economic and social value. This model constitutes one of the essential foundations for building a national approach to learning that emerges from reality and is developed through shared practice.
The shared goal and the final destination
This pathway emerges from the need to define a shared goal that serves as a compass for action and clarifies the destination we seek to reach collectively. In the absence of such a goal, efforts remain scattered, and cooperation may exist only in form, without translating into real impact. Hence, the question Where are we going? is posed as a practical necessity that helps actors understand their position, role, and relationship with others within the broader picture. The shared goal lies in building an integrated learning and action ecosystem that transforms the existing diversity among actors into a source of strength and reorganizes relationships based on cooperation and complementarity (rather than competition and duplication). This ecosystem seeks to enable all actors to work within shared frameworks that generate sustainable economic and social value, open space for more dignified employment opportunities, and support initiatives that are more capable of continuity and growth. In the longer term, we aspire to contribute to the formulation of a Jordanian national learning model that organizes learning from experience, embeds a culture of partnership, and supports the transition from fragmented individual efforts to collective action that is direction-aware, goal-oriented, and resilient in the face of transformations and crises.
In the first phase, we begin with a clear and shared commitment to produce a knowledge paper that documents discussions, captures lessons learned from the experience, and transforms dialogue into learning material that can be built upon and accumulated. This paper constitutes a practical starting point rather than an end in itself; it is used as a tool for understanding reality, organizing questions, and crystallizing emerging directions. Over the longer term, the ambition extends beyond producing written knowledge to influencing the broader environment surrounding the cultural and creative industries sector. This pathway may gradually contribute to enriching macro-level debate and opening space for thinking about supportive policies, particularly those addressing emerging and early-career youth in the sector, enhancing their opportunities to enter it, remain within it, and build sustainable professional pathways. Within this framework, culture is approached as a driver of development, a potential source of dignified income, and a social and economic value worthy of investment and protection. From this perspective, the production of a knowledge paper is understood as a foundational step within a longer trajectory that seeks to create better conditions for cultural flourishing and to strengthen its presence in policies, work practices, and the broader economy.
At this stage, there is a need to firmly establish the direction we are heading toward and to clarify how intersections among actors will take shape, to transform the desire for joint action into a clearly defined pathway. The absence of a shared direction keeps intersections spontaneous and temporary, and makes cooperation dependent on individual initiatives rather than embedded within a conscious structure. Reaching a shared understanding of the cultural and creative industries constitutes a key starting point for this pathway, as it enables the construction of a common language, the definition of the field’s boundaries and scope, and its linkage to other organizing axes such as employment, the social economy, and socially oriented entrepreneurship. These axes function as lenses that help read reality, organize roles, and clarify potential spaces of intersection. In parallel, this pathway cannot advance without a shared value foundation that regulates relationships among actors and serves as a reference for cooperation, managing differences, and building trust. Shared values constitute a practical condition for enabling collective learning and ensuring the continuity of work within this complementary framework.
Determining where we want to go is essential; however, how we get there is no less important, and may in fact be more sensitive within this approach. A pathway built without value awareness, or one that trades values for quick results, produces fragile impact regardless of its apparent success. This pathway is driven by the pursuit of building an economy that produces value not merely monetary value, but first and foremost, social value. Social value is the core of this approach and the framework through which the relevance and long-term effectiveness of work are assessed. In this context, operating within a clear value system grounded in the public good and ethical commitment becomes a fundamental condition for any economic or creative activity.
Employment, in this framework, is understood as the natural outcome of a coherent pathway rather than an isolated objective pursued in itself. When initiatives are built on genuine value, managed through complementary relationships, and situated within a shared learning environment, employment opportunities emerge organically, more sustainably, and with less fragility. At the same time, this approach does not overlook the social and economic pressures affecting individuals and organizations, which limit their capacity for risk-taking or continuity. Hence arises the need for a pathway that is conscious of these pressures, neither denying nor ignoring them, but rather seeking to address them through cooperation, solidarity, and the development of work models that mitigate their impact instead of amplifying it.
Legitimate concern: where are we heading? And how can this form endure?
A legitimate concern emerges within this pathway around the question Where are we heading? especially since speaking about a cluster or a shared space automatically opens a series of practical questions: are we dealing with a network, partnerships, or an entity with an organizational structure? And how can this “form” live and endure without losing its spirit or turning into a rigid structure? This concern is understood as an early signal of awareness of the risks of sliding toward ready-made solutions. Experience shows that borrowing ready organizational models, whether they have succeeded in other contexts or gained official recognition, does not guarantee success; rather, it may strip the initiative of its meaning when templates are imposed that do not belong to its reality. Therefore, adopting a pre-fabricated form, or “wearing” a ready-made model under the pretext of effectiveness or formal acceptance, is considered an unacceptable option within this approach.
This pathway is grounded in the conviction that the models we operate within must be designed, not replicated; that they must be authentic, rooted in their local communities, and capable of interacting with their real conditions. This means that arriving at an organizational form (if one is needed) should be the outcome of a learning and experiential process, not its starting point, and that registration or formal structuring, if it occurs, should serve the idea rather than reshape it according to external templates. In this context, the cultural and creative industries acquire particular importance as a broad and inclusive field encompassing diverse modes of production, work, expression, and value chains. Viewing this sector through such a comprehensive lens opens space for new models of clustering and collective action that go beyond traditional classifications and allow for the emergence of a living entity capable of adaptation and growth within its context.
Many statements were raised and numerous important questions accumulated, some related to direction, others to form, and others to how to live and endure. This accumulation is seen as an indicator of the seriousness of the inquiry and of our engagement with a complex reality that does not tolerate quick answers or ready-made formulas. The density of questions posed regarding the nature of the cluster, forms of partnership, mechanisms of work, values, and shared language reflects a genuine need to pause, reflect, and avoid rushing toward predetermined solutions. Asking questions at this stage is an essential part of the learning process itself, and a necessary step to avoid reproducing models that do not resemble us and do not belong to our context. From here, this pathway seeks to embrace these questions, organize them, and gradually transform them into a compass that guides action and helps crystallize a shared language, genuine intersections, and partnerships rooted in reality. Learning thus begins with the recognition that the questions themselves are our primary material, and that only from them can an authentic and viable pathway take shape.
The value foundation for collective work
It is not possible to build a genuine space for collective action without a clear value foundation that serves as the organizing framework for interaction among actors, guiding the nature of relationships, work mechanisms, and decision-making processes. From here emerges a foundational question no less important than those related to structures or programs: What are the values we choose to work under together? These values are not proposed as moral slogans, but as practical commitments tested in daily practice and in moments of disagreement, tension, and challenge.
This foundation begins with tolerance, understood as a conscious capacity to accept difference, manage diversity, and recognize the legitimacy of multiple approaches within a single ecosystem, without implying the abandonment or dilution of positions. Tolerance here means refraining from exclusion and from turning disagreement into rupture or conflict. Complementing this is mutual respect as a condition for any productive cooperation; cooperation itself as a conscious practice that goes beyond parallel work toward genuine partnership; and mutual support that strengthens collective resilience rather than exhausting individual efforts. This ecosystem is also grounded in the principle of doing no harm, that is, refraining from diminishing others, breaking trust, or weakening existing initiatives, and in the belief that every actor has a possible and necessary role within this space, without prior classification or exclusion.
This pathway is likewise anchored in a set of organizing values and principles that form the ethical and practical basis of the community and give collective work its meaning and direction. These include solidarity as an active practice of standing together and sharing burdens in the face of pressures and challenges; alliance-building as conscious cooperation formed around shared goals and values rather than closed alignment; and generosity in participation and empathy, understood as openness to sharing knowledge, experience, and time, coupled with human sensitivity to others’ circumstances and limits. The framework also rests on realism and honesty with oneself in assessing capacities and challenges without distortion or exaggeration, and on authenticity and rootedness through working from the local context, respecting accumulated experience, and rejecting the replication of externally imposed models.
This value framework is strengthened by a belief in horizontality as the basis of relationships among actors, where all are in the same boat and share responsibility and decision-making, and in participation as the essence of thinking, planning, and implementation, not a procedural formality. It is further grounded in epistemic honesty, a commitment to producing knowledge that emerges from lived experience, acknowledging limits, and avoiding claims or embellishment. The framework is completed by embracing diversity and cultural plurality, viewing difference as a source of richness rather than a threat, and by inclusivity, which ensures the building of a space that can accommodate all and enables engagement and contribution without exclusion.
Lifelong learning constitutes one of the guiding values of this pathway, understood as a continuous commitment to learning, relearning, and revisiting understanding and practice in light of experience and change. Knowledge here is a dynamic process that evolves with shifting realities, changing contexts, and accumulated experience. This implies openness to critique, readiness to acknowledge limitations, and willingness to adjust positions and approaches when needed. Within a learning community, learning is not reduced to training or knowledge transfer; rather, it is embodied in learning from experience, from others, and from error, and in transforming daily practice into material for reflection and development.
Critique and participation in this pathway are understood as both values and practices, not for the purpose of accountability or condemnation, but to create a safe space that allows for error and learning from it, and that fosters constructive friction among actors. Error here is not failure, but learning material, provided it is managed within a framework of respect and shared responsibility. This approach contributes to building a collective behavior that is capable of reflection, evaluation, and review, with the awareness that we do not represent only ourselves, but also reflect our communities, contexts, and diverse social and cultural circles.
In this context, the concept of ethics emerges as a broader and more flexible framework than abstract values, one that can be activated in everyday practice. Ethics takes into account human nature, personal change, and the ways individuals are affected by circumstances and events, without turning values into rigid or idealized standards that are difficult to uphold. From here, the option of agreeing on clear value-based practices rather than merely naming values is proposed as a practical entry point that translates principles into observable behaviors that can be noticed, reviewed, and collectively developed, thereby contributing to trust-building, deepening learning, and strengthening collective capacity for growth.
Translating meaning into everyday practice
The emphasis on the concept of value lies at the core of this approach, particularly when speaking of the community as an inclusive framework for work and learning. Values are invoked here as practical principles that should be reflected like initiatives, in working methods, and in the kinds of relationships we build with one another. This commitment remains incomplete if it does not take into account the realities of individuals and their daily lives, as well as their responsibilities toward their families and immediate circles. From this standpoint, this pathway raises a practical question: How do we translate values and principles into tangible practices within initiatives and work? And how do we build a system that considers human beings in their entirety, as part of a broader social network that both affects and is affected by what we do? Values are not measured by intentions, but by their ability to shape choices, organize relationships, and guide decisions in practice.
This system takes shape gradually through a comprehensive configuration that brings together diverse sectors and relevant actors, ensuring that existing diversity is represented rather than reduced. Over time, and through shared work and accumulated experience, a common and authentic language begins to emerge, a language rooted in reality. In this context, points of intersection grow step by step, opening space for genuine partnerships and collaborations that are grounded in experience and capable of enduring while remaining closely connected to reality. This pathway also acknowledges an existing reality marked by the absence of a shared language, a weak culture of solidarity, and eroded trust among actors at the present stage. Accordingly, this approach does not claim to bypass this reality, but rather seeks to engage with it as it is, and to rebuild it through collective learning, cumulative action, and the transformation of values from theoretical discourse into living practice.
Learning as a cumulative process
A final note: what emerges at this stage in the form of open questions, incomplete spaces, and the absence of definitive decisions regarding certain aspects related to structure or mechanisms should not be understood as a weakness in the approach. Rather, it reflects an inherent characteristic of a living learning process that is still in its early stages. The first meeting was convened to open a shared space for reflection, to place questions in their proper context, and to agree on a conceptual and values-based foundation upon which it is possible to build gradually. The contours of the national learning model take shape through accumulation, continuous dialogue, and shared experience, as well as through what subsequent meetings bring in terms of deeper discussions, clearer points of intersection, and forms of alignment that crystallize over time. From this perspective, the process is understood as an open and evolving learning and development journey, in which ideas are integrated, assumptions are tested, and questions are continuously reformulated, leading toward a more mature model one that is grounded in reality and capable of sustaining life and continuity.
Suha M. Ayyash
