AbstractThe present thesis explores the theoretical foundation of a new learner approach in higher education called Learner-Led Approaches in Education (LED) as described by Ann-Merete Iversen, Anni S. Pedersen, Lone Krogh and Annie A. Jensen (2015). In their description of LED the term co-creation and The Theory of Complex Responsive Processes by Ralph Stacey, Douglas Griffin and Patricia Shaw are central, both of which constitute focal points for my research. The present thesis has been directed toward investigating the following question:How can a definition of the concept co-creation in LED and perspectives from the theory of complex responsive processes facilitate a theoretical foundation for the LED approach? 
The evaluation thesis is accordingly two-fold. The first part discusses how a definition for the concept of co-creation can be developed from the descriptions of LED named above.To do this I draw upon articles from Niklas Ind & Nick Coates (2013) to account for not only the relevance of but also the need for a definition. This is supplemented by Liz Sanders & George Simons (2009) in an attempt to categorize co-creation in terms of social value.To outline and create a new definition I borrow case studies from one or more of the following professors: Cathrine Bovill, Alison Cook-Sather, Peter Felten, Luke Millard & Niamh Moore-Cherry (2016, 2014, 2011). The case studies allow a comparison with the above named descriptions of LED and from there develop a definition. 
The second part proceeds with an interpretive description of The Theory of Complex Responsive Processes, which is then regarded for how as a constituent theory it relates to the theory of LED. The focus here is on Stacey et al.’s explanations of human interactions and how such interactions can be regarded as complex responsive processes. The Theory of Complex Responsive Processes consist of analogies from complex adaptive systems, George H. Meads´ theory of interactionism (Mind, Self and Society), and Norbert Elias theory of power configurations. I consider how the combination of these elements can lead to an understanding of human interactions as resulting from the circumstances of the unit of time in which they were experienced. This lead to a different perspective on learning and knowledge creation, which I use in relating the Theory of Complex Responsive Processes to LED.
In my discussion, I argue that LED and the Theory of Complex Responsive Processes have several elements in common. However, I argue also that Iversen et al. (2015) do not utilise the full potential of the Theory of Complex Responsive Processes, and the aspects they have used can be regarded as misrepresentations of its fundamental perspective. The resultant complications are due to LED and the Theory of Complex Responsive Processes being derived from two different scientific approaches. 
I contend that the authors of LED have missed the essential dilemma in their use of the Theory of Complex Responsive Processes in LED. Furthermore, I suggest how LED could draw on the Theory of Complex Responsive Processes to a greater extent, which would provide a stronger underpinning of the theoretical foundation of LED. In conclusion, the LED concept could be better substantiated by using the co-creation definition and by a more scientific approach to the Theory of Complex Responsive Processes. Taken together the whole concept of LED would be strengthened and lead to a simplification of its theoretical framework. It is argued here, that in permitting the above recommendations, more explicit formulation and the further evolvement of LED will be made possible.