Co-creation in higher education: a conceptual systematic review

Abstract

Co-creation constitutes a novel pedagogical approach for enhancing teaching and learning in higher education. When students and staff collaborate to improve curriculum, pedagogical resources, and the development of students’ roles as peer-mentors or teaching assistants, it has led to increased learning outcomes, more inclusive practices, empowered students, and improved relationships between students and staff. In this conceptual systematic review of 222 research articles, we investigate characteristics of research on co-creation and analyse how the interactions constituting co-creation have been conceptualised. We identified dialogue, positioning, agency, and voice as core concepts describing co-creational interactions. These concepts are highly interconnected and were examined both as products of co-creation and as vital elements for co-creation to be productive. Based on these findings, we developed an analytical framework serving (a) to inform analyses of co-creational interaction and (b) as a model for educators designing co-creational activities. We further contribute to the theoretical underpinning of co-creation by discussing how dialogic theories can inform investigations of co-creational interactions in future research. We argue that there is a range of research questions related to the interactions constituting co-creation that are not sufficiently investigated. We suggest that future research should be directed towards observational studies of these interactions to develop knowledge on how educators can interact inclusively with students, fostering agency and positioning students as significant contributors to educational processes in higher education.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Higher Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01364-1
Co‑creation inhigher education: aconceptual systematic
review
MarenOmland1 · MagnusHontvedt2 · FazilatSiddiq3 · AnjaAmundrud4 ·
HegeHermansen1· MaikenA.S.Mathisen5· GudrunRudningen5 ·
FrederikReiersen5
Accepted: 13 November 2024
© The Author(s) 2025
Abstract
Co-creation constitutes a novel pedagogical approach for enhancing teaching and learning
in higher education. When students and staff collaborate to improve curriculum, pedagogi-
cal resources, and the development of students’ roles as peer-mentors or teaching assis-
tants, it has led to increased learning outcomes, more inclusive practices, empowered stu-
dents, and improved relationships between students and staff. In this conceptual systematic
review of 222 research articles, we investigate characteristics of research on co-creation
and analyse how the interactions constituting co-creation have been conceptualised. We
identified dialogue, positioning, agency, and voice as core concepts describing co-crea-
tional interactions. These concepts are highly interconnected and were examined both as
products of co-creation and as vital elements for co-creation to be productive. Based on
these findings, we developed an analytical framework serving (a) to inform analyses of
co-creational interaction and (b) as a model for educators designing co-creational activi-
ties. We further contribute to the theoretical underpinning of co-creation by discussing how
dialogic theories can inform investigations of co-creational interactions in future research.
We argue that there is a range of research questions related to the interactions constituting
co-creation that are not sufficiently investigated. We suggest that future research should be
directed towards observational studies of these interactions to develop knowledge on how
educators can interact inclusively with students, fostering agency and positioning students
as significant contributors to educational processes in higher education.
Keywords Co-creation· Student-staff partnership· Dialogue· Positioning· Voice· Agency
* Maren Omland
marenoml@oslomet.no
1 Center fortheStudy ofProfessions, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
2 Department ofPedagogy, University ofSouth-Eastern Norway, Horten, Norway
3 Unit forDigitalisation andEducation, University ofSouth-Eastern Norway, Notodden, Norway
4 Department ofEducation, University ofOslo, Oslo, Norway
5 Work Research Institute, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Introduction
Co-creation has garnered significant attention in higher education practice and research
over the past decade (Mercer-Mapstone etal., 2017; Zarandi etal., 2022a), evidenced
by a notable increase in the number of published studies since 2016. Reported benefits
include broader inclusion (Cook-Sather, 2020), enhanced learning outcomes (Lubicz-
Nawrocka & Bovill, 2021), improved relationships (Chilvers etal., 2021), and increased
motivation, confidence, self-regulation, communication, and collaboration skills (Cates
etal., 2018; Mercer-Mapstone etal., 2017). This conceptual systematic review exam-
ines peer-reviewed journal articles that explore this influential approach to development
work in higher education and offers an analytical framework for the interactions that
constitute co-creation. The framework can be used both as a tool for analysing these
interactions and as a model for educators designing such initiatives.
We adopt Bovill etal.’s definition of co-creation as ‘when staff and students work
collaboratively with one another to create components of curricula and/or pedagogi-
cal approaches’ (Bovill etal., 2016, p. 196). According to this definition, collaborative
work is central to co-creational practices and is established through interactions. Con-
sequently, this article emphasises interaction as a foundational element of co-creation.
Organisations are created and sustained through interaction, which forms the basis for
their routines and practices (Heath & Hindmarch, 2002). In this context, situated inter-
action refers to the direct and often co-present encounters between students, teachers,
and colleagues as they participate in co-creational processes. Insituated interaction, the
production and comprehension of actions depend on various resources, including spo-
ken language, body language, and physical materials (Goodwin, 1994; Heath & Hind-
march, 2002). Therefore, co-creation involves revealing, analysing, and altering the
interactional organisation of higher education.
A foundational conception of co-creation is the idea that through bringing together
individuals with different roles, backgrounds, and experiences, institutions can gener-
ate innovative ideas and approaches (Blau & Shamir-Inbal, 2018; Luckner etal., 2019).
Co-creation recognises the value of students’ contributions to teaching and learning
(Bovill, 2020a, 2020b) and promotes inclusivity and equitable teaching practices (Cook-
Sather, 2022) by ensuring that a wide range of perspectives and voices is represented
(Nasri etal., 2023; Tai etal., 2023). This approach, therefore, challenges the traditional
roles of students and staff, and researchers have emphasised the importance of participa-
tion on equal terms (Abbot & Cook-Sather, 2020; El-Hakim etal., 2016). Co-creational
practices encompass a variety of initiatives and disciplines, including student–staff col-
laborations in curriculum design, teaching activities, assessment, and the development
of students’ roles as tutors, teaching assistants, peer mentors, or staff partners.
Through an iterative process, detailed in the ‘Coding and data extraction’ section,
involving a continuous examination of the data corpus and theoretical perspectives, we
identified four key concepts often used to explain co-creational interactions: dialogue,
positioning, voice, and agency. These concepts facilitate the interpretation of co-crea-
tion as a situated accomplishment that emerges from interactional processes.
This study has two primary aims: (a) to systematise existing knowledge on the con-
cept of co-creation as represented in peer-reviewed literature and (b) to explore how dia-
logue, positioning, voice, and agency have been employed in prior studies and their role
in theorising co-creation. By pursuing these aims, we develop an analytical framework
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
that clarifies the relationships among these key concepts, ultimately informing direc-
tions for future research.
The following research questions have guided this review:
1. What characterises research on co-creation in higher education?
2. How are dialogue, positioning, voice, and agency employed in research on co-creation?
3. What theoretical relationships can be identified among dialogue, positioning, voice, and
agency?
Theoretical framing
Through the use of concepts, theoretical approaches help us recognise similar phenom-
ena across different contexts (Vygotsky, 1986). Building on conceptual understandings of
phenomena, theories can explain their interrelationships. Thus, theoretical and conceptual
framings of co-creation can enhance our understanding of the phenomenon and clarify how
its various aspects are interconnected.
Co-creation is embedded within social practices, a central focus of sociocultural theories
of learning and development (Vygotsky, 1986; Wertsch, 1991). The related tradition of dia-
logic theories emphasises how dialogue requires each utterance to be interpreted in relation
to both preceding and future utterances (Bakhtin, 1986). Meaning-making thus emanates
from the context of the speaker–listener interaction and cannot be reduced solely to the
speaker’s utterance or the listener’s interpretation. Linell (1998) expanded upon Bakhtin’s
theory by describing how each utterance in a dialogic exchange reflects a simultaneous
response to prior utterances and an initiation of further responses. Consequently, every
utterance is both a response to previous exchanges and a projection of future ones, con-
stituting both a response and a projected continuation from the interlocutor. In this study,
these theories provide a foundation for understanding interactions, and we will explore the
explanatory power of these theoretical perspectives in relation to co-creation.
Focusing on dialogue, positioning, voice, and agency allows for conceptualising co-cre-
ation within a sociocultural paradigm because these concepts help us understand co-crea-
tion as a situated accomplishment that emerges from interactional processes. This approach
aligns with the broader sociocultural perspective that knowledge is contextually situated
and developed through a process of joint construction (Linell, 1998; Mercer, 2019), which
is dependent on the interplay between human mental processes and their cultural settings
(Säljö, 2021). Research on co-creation often refers to Paolo Freire and critical pedagogy
(e.g. Bovill etal., 2011; Matthews et al., 2019a). Such theories elucidate the inclusive
dimensions of co-creation and the role of diverse perspectives in fostering new understand-
ings. We suggest using dialogic theories to provide insights into how such perspectives can
engage in interactions, thereby negotiating new meanings and knowledge.
Co‑creation, student–staff partnerships, andreview articles
Co-creation is part of a cluster of terms that describe related phenomena, with the most
prominent overlap in higher education research occurring with student–staff partner-
ships. Student–staff partnership, or students as partners (SaP), is defined as ‘a collabora-
tive, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute
equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptu-
alisation, decision-making, implementation, investigation, or analysis’ (Cook-Sather etal.,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
2014, pp. 6–7). This approach differs from co-creation in that it is often more comprehen-
sive, often takes place over a longer period, and implies a higher level of equality between
partners (Bovill etal., 2016). However, student–staff partnerships always comprise some
co-creation. We therefore use the terms co-creation or co-creational practices when dis-
cussing activities involving co-creation, even though the referenced articles may sometimes
use terms such as student–staff partnerships.
Although we identified nine previous review articles (marked with an asterisk (*) in
our data corpus), none shares the same scope or conceptual focus as our research. Six of
these reviews were more narrowly defined, focusing on specific areas such as professional
education (Barradell & Bell, 2021), geography (Alkhannani, 2021; Liang & Matthews,
2021b), or conceptual understanding (Cruz etal., 2022; Zarandi etal., 2022a, 2022b). The
remaining three reviews analysed publications released prior to 2016 (Matthews et al.,
2019a, 2019c; Mercer-Mapstone etal., 2017). This is significant because the large number
of recently published articles has a substantial impact on the findings. Therefore, our study
makes an empirical contribution by reviewing a range of newly published empirical studies
and a theoretical contribution by developing an analytical framework for the interactions
constituting co-creational practices.
Methods
A conceptual systematic literature review is aimed at reconciling and extending past
research focusing on a certain domain to present theoretical syntheses, develop new theo-
ries and/or analytical models of unexplored phenomena, or ‘direct attention to substantive
domains that have not yet received adequate attention’ (Hulland, 2020; Yadav, 2010, p. 5).
In this review, we employed the five steps for best practice when conducting conceptual
reviews, as suggested by Hulland (2020): (1) establishing the scope of the domain under
review (aim and research questions); (2) integrating and synthesising extant knowledge
within the domain (search, eligibility criteria, and screening); (3) resolving inconsistencies
(coding, data extraction, and analysis); (4) highlighting research gaps; and (5) setting an
agenda for future research. These steps are further described in the following sections.
Literature search andprocedures
To develop a search string for addressing our research questions, we limited our scope of
student–staff collaboration to Bovill etal.’s (2016) concept of co-creation (see the‘Intro-
duction’ section). We included student–staff partnerships, which typically comprise co-
creational practices. Thus, we chose the following search string: ‘higher education’ AND
‘co-creation’ OR ‘co-creating’ OR ‘student–staff partnership’ OR ‘students as partners’.
Searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, and Eric, targeting peer-reviewed
journal articles in English published between 2003 and 31 December 2022.1 These data-
bases were selected due to their prominence in educational research, with peer-reviewed
articles considered high-quality scientific knowledge (Nieminen & Carless, 2023). We rec-
ognise that some co-creation research is published in journals that are not peer-reviewed
1 We included articles published online up to this date, even when the issue’s published date was subse-
quent.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
and other less traditional venues, such as Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Edu-
cation. However, aiming at conducting a conceptual systematic review, peer-reviewed
studies are important as they are expected to identify and apply relevant theories and con-
cepts which are key to answering our research questions. To mitigate any potential gaps,
we also hand-searched the International Journal for Students as Partners (IJSaP) and The
Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change (JEIPC), which is not indexed
but peer-reviewed and thus met our inclusion criteria. The search, completed on 20 Sep-
tember 2024, yielded 860 hits. Figure2 outlines the search process using the PRISMA
(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 flow diagram
(Page etal., 2021).
Eligibility criteria andscreening
Our research string included concepts that sometimes describe collaborative processes
beyond our definition, such as co-creation among students or between students and external
stakeholders. Therefore, we established criteria for article inclusion and exclusion:
Included:
1. Peer-reviewed articles
2. Conceptual/theoretical, empirical, and review articles
3. Articles within higher education
4. Articles in English
5. Articles that address co-creation as a collaborative endeavour between staff/faculty and
students
Excluded:
1. Articles not addressing co-creation as a main phenomenon (e.g. if co-creation was only
mentioned as part of the theory or discussion) (Reason 1)
2. Co-creation limited to survey responses or one-way communication (Reason 2)
3. Grey literature (i.e. the article was not peer-reviewed) (Reason 3)
4. Articles on student–student or student–external stakeholder collaboration (Reason 4)
The first author and a co-author screened the titles, abstracts, and keywords of 860 arti-
cles, leading to 418 articles for full-text screening. We used Rayyan, a free online tool
designed for conducting collaborative systematic reviews for the initial screening. The full-
text screening resulted in 273 articles for full-text coding. During the coding process, we
excluded 51 more articles (PRISMA chart, Fig.1). Given the substantial volume of our
data corpus, consisting of 222 peer-reviewed articles (Benzies etal., 2006), we resolved to
maintain our decision to only include peer-reviewed literature.
Coding anddata extraction
First, we categorised the articles according to predefined characteristics, such as year of
publication, methodology, educational level investigated, and country in which the study
was conducted. The NVivo Collaboration Server software was selected for coding and data
extraction.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Second, we collaboratively developed a coding guide to review the 222 articles for
theoretical framing, key concepts, aims, research questions, and co-creation activities.
The articles were divided among eight researchers for coding. Inspired by thematic syn-
thesis (Thomas & Harden, 2008), one researcher qualitatively coded each article, apply-
ing free line-by-line coding to the text. To ensure coherence and data-grounded inter-
pretations (Braun etal., 2019), we applied two means to ensure mutual understanding
and quality in our coding: (a) All authors initially coded the same two articles and dis-
cussed code interpretations. (b) Throughout the coding process, we held regular meet-
ings to discuss and critically reflect on our understanding of the codes, emphasising rig-
our, reflexivity, transparency, and peer review to enhance the credibility of our findings.
Records identified from
databases and journals:
Scopus (n = 601)
Web of science (n = 379)
ERIC (n = 165)
IJSaP (n = 47)
JEIPC (n=24)
Total, N = 1192
Records removed before
screening:
Duplicate records removed
(n = 356)
Records screened (title, abstract,
and keywords)
(n = 860)
Records excluded after
screening of title, abstract, and
keywords (n = 442)
Full text records retrieved
(n = 418)
Records excluded after full text
screening
(n = 145) – Reason 1
Full texts assessed and coded
(n = 273) Reports excluded: 51 excluded
Reason 1 (n = 29)
Reason 2 (n = 4)
Reason 3 (n = 15)
Reason 4 (n = 3)
Studies included in review
(n = 222)
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Identification
Screening
Included
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram describing the selection process
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Identifying key concepts
The four key concepts were identified abductively. This approach allowed us to consider
both sociocultural and dialogic theories focusing on interactions while simultaneously
describing the characteristics of the data corpus. The key concepts were identified using
two approaches:
a) Based on preliminary studies of key articles (marked with asterisks (**) in our data
corpus), as well as the screening processes (see the‘Eligibility criteria and screening’
section), we identified these concepts as crucial in describing co-creational interactions
across the data corpus. The coding process confirmed this (dialogue n = 53; positioning
n = 110; voice n = 47; and agency n = 87).
b) These concepts have been used successfully within a sociocultural paradigm to describe
key aspects of interactions similar to those constituting co-creation (e.g. Clarke etal.,
2016; Omland & Rødnes, 2020; Snell & Lefstein, 2018; Wegerif, 2008).
We outline our further understanding of the four key concepts as follows:
Dialogue: The term dialogic describes interactions with an inherent aim towards
mutual exploration of topics, creating shared understanding, or co-construction of
new meanings. Thus, dialogic interactions encompass more than transmitting infor-
mation. We follow Linell’s (2003) definition of dialogue as ‘actual interactions
between or within individuals insituations and/or within sociocultural practices’ (p.
5).
Positioning: We use positioning to describe how relations among people are socially
constituted, referring to individuals’ ‘relations of power, deference and entitlement,
social affiliation and distance’ (Holland etal., 1998, p. 127). Positions are not per-
manent but become apparent through discursive processes and can be negotiated
through interactions so that a person may be repositioned with a new status (Holland
etal., 1998).
Voice: Voice can be used both literally to signal a persons’ actual speaking, and met-
aphorically to signal a sense of empowerment and agency experienced when one’s
voice influences situated circumstances (Cook-Sather, 2020). In the last sense, we
understand voice as ‘a person’s worldview and fate’ (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293), repre-
senting a more general way of presenting an idea or perspective. Student voice rep-
resents the power to influence educational decision-making processes by students’
expressing their perspectives (Bovill etal., 2011).
Agency: We consider agency as the socioculturally mediated capacity to intentionally
initiate action (Ahearn, 2001). This conception of agency includes situational factors
and the individual’s prior experiences influencing the individual’s sense of agency
(Hilppö etal., 2016). For students or staff to voice their opinions in dialogue, they
must possess the agency to do so.
We coded for dialogue, positioning, voice, and agency when these terms were explic-
itly used in the articles and when the articles discussed phenomena aligning with the
descriptions provided above, even if different terminology was used. This way of coding
enabled us to examine not only how these phenomena were conceptualised but also how
they were studied and applied analytically.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Identifying themes
To answer RQ2, we analysed the data generated from the codes, focusing on the four
concepts: dialogue, positioning, voice, and agency. Here, we applied reflexive thematic
analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2021; Braun et al., 2019). This involved an iterative
process of data immersion, reading, reflecting, and questioning. The outcome of this
process led to the identification of key themes, such as ‘how co-creation influences tra-
ditional positions’ and ‘positions as a challenge or obstacle to overcome’ under the posi-
tioning code.
Findings
To contribute to the theorisation of co-creation, we focus the second part of this section
(the‘RQ2: How are dialogue, positioning, voice, and agency employed in research on co-
creation?’ section) on the situated practices constituting co-creational interaction and the
four identified key concepts. We first give an overview of the characteristics of research on
co-creation in higher education (the‘RQ1: What characterises research on co-creation in
higher education?’ section).
RQ1: What characterises research onco‑creation inhigher education?
Research on co-creation in higher education can be broadly categorised into two theoreti-
cal paradigms. The first paradigm follows conceptualisations of co-creation as a collabora-
tive endeavour, as outlined in the ‘Introduction’ section, frequently building on the work
of Catherine Bovill and Alison Cook-Sather (e.g. Bovill etal., 2011, 2016; Bovill, 2020a,
2020b; Cook-Sather, 2020). These authors cite inspiration from critical pedagogy (Bovill
& Woolmer, 2019) and position democratic education as an overarching goal for co-crea-
tion, with reference to authors such as John Dewey (Bovill, 2014) and Paolo Freire (Bovill
etal., 2011).
The second paradigm centres on the concept of co-creation of value. This approach situ-
ates co-creation in the landscape of marketing approaches, focusing on value production,
and often compares students to consumers (e.g. Fleischman etal., 2015; Fujita etal., 2017).
In this approach, co-creation often describes practices where students’ voices are mainly
acknowledged in the form of feedback that leads to alterations in educational approaches
(e.g. da Silva etal., 2020; Díaz-Méndez etal., 2019). However, some researchers in this
approach use the concept in line with the definition we presented above, comprising stu-
dent–staff collaboration (e.g. Dollinger etal., 2018). We have only included articles from
this approach when they discuss co-creation in ways following our eligibility criteria (see
the‘Eligibility criteria and screening’ section).
Most authors refer to the work of Bovill and Cook-Sather rather than explicitly stating
a broader theoretical position. It is generally acknowledged that co-creation is a situated
practice that arises from interactions between students and staff, which adheres to a socio-
cultural theoretical perspective. This interpretation is supported by Matthews etal. (2019a)
in their review of student–staff partnerships: ‘the framing many scholars use in theorising
SaP reflects a sociocultural paradigm’ (p. 285).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
As shown in Table1, most articles have been published in the UK (n = 53), Australia
(n = 43), and the USA and Canada (n = 37). The authors Bovill, Cook-Sather, Matthews,
and Mercer-Mapstone are prominently featured in the corpus, with Bovill (n = 179) and
Cook-Sather (n = 180) being particularly frequently cited.
There has been a steep increase in published studies over the last decade. While only
two publications were produced between 2004 and 2011 and nine between 2012 and 2015,
the number of publications surged after 2016, reaching 211 articles. This trend likely
reflects a response to widespread calls for pedagogical reform and the enhancement of stu-
dent engagement in higher education (e.g. Harper & Quaye, 2009; Trowler, 2010), as well
as a self-reinforcing cycle fuelled by the positive outcomes associated with the increasing
adoption of co-creational approaches.
Of these 222 articles, 34 were conceptual, nine were review articles, and 179 were
empirical. During coding, many conceptual articles frequently referenced earlier empirical
studies, integrating empirical data into their discussions. This overlap blurred the distinc-
tion between conceptual and empirical articles, leading to the inclusion of empirical exam-
ples from conceptual articles in our findings.
Co-creation was applied to 34 different subjects. We assigned these subjects to larger
categories, as shown in Table1. The initiatives described in the 179 empirical articles
Table 1 Overview of the included studies (N = 222)
Year of publication NType of article NRegion NDiscipline N
2004–2011 2 Empirical 179 Africa 1 Art 7
2012–2015 9 Conceptual 34 Asia 22 Business & manage-
ment
9
2016–2019 90 Review 9 Australia and New
Zealand
43 Education 12
2020–2023 121 Europe 25 Health 19
UK 53 Interdisciplinary 12
USA and Canada 37 Social sciences 16
South America 3 STEM 25
Multiple 15 Not discipline-specific 122
Not applicable 23
Table 2 Overview of the
co-created initiatives in the
empirical articles (N = 179)
What is co-created? N
Curriculum 31
Teaching assistant roles 5
Peer mentor roles 6
Assessment 10
Pedagogical resources (e.g. course activities, guidelines, and
frameworks)
33
Pedagogical approaches (to enhance teaching, often SaP) 61
Research 7
Other 10
Not specified 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
exhibited considerable variety regarding what was co-created. In Table2, we classified this
range into eight categories. The diversity in disciplines and co-creation contexts highlights
the broad application and impact of co-creation.
Table 3 outlines the data collection methods applied in the empirical articles. Most
(n = 165 of 179) of the empirical articles relied on data based on participants’ reported
experiences (interviews, autoethnography, surveys, and narratives). Only ten articles
used observations, and two used experimental designs. These findings highlight that co-
creational interactions are essentially studied indirectly through participants’ reported
experiences.
RQ2: How are dialogue, positioning, voice, andagency employed inresearch
onco‑creation?
There is limited variation in how co-creation and SaP are conceptualised across our data
corpus. A key assumption in this review is that the four concepts—dialogue, positioning,
voice, and agency—are crucial for unpacking the interactional dynamics that underlie co-
creational practices. To better understand these four dimensions of co-creation, we provide
a descriptive account of how these key concepts are understood conceptually and applied
analytically across the data corpus.
Dialogue
We found that the term dialogue is frequently employed in research on co-creation.
Even though we did not find a unified definition of dialogue across the data corpus,
the broad understanding of dialogue is in line with the definition we have presented
(see the‘Coding and data extraction’ section). Sometimes, dialogue is used to describe
Table 3 Overview of the methods applied in the empirical articles (N = 179)
Qualitative
approaches
(N = 131)
Quantitative
approaches
(N = 19)
Mixed-method
approaches
(N = 29)
Data based on participants’ reports
Autoethnography 12
Interview 51
Interview and narratives 10
Interview and survey 8 27
Reflections on own experiences 30
Survey 8 17
Survey and reflective narratives 2
Data from recorded observations
Recorded digital activities (e.g. workshops) 5
Audio recordings 3
Video recordings and other methods 2
Other
Document analyses 2
Experimental design 2
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
interactions (e.g. Cook-Sather & Des-Ogugua, 2019; Martens etal., 2019), and some-
times, more dialogic aspects are discussed such as interactions with an inherent aim
towards a mutual exploration of topics, creating shared understanding, or co-construc-
tion of new meanings (e.g. Gravett et al., 2020; Kaur & Noman, 2020). Across the
articles, dialogue is conceptualised as a mode through which staff and students can
exchange information and perspectives and share thinking and enquiry, encompassing
staff and students collaboratively solving problems or brainstorming ideas (e.g. Peseta
& Bell, 2020; Uskoković, 2018). The conceptualisations highlight the collaborative
potential of dialogue.
The analytical interpretations of dialogue vary in two main ways: dialogue being
analysed as a tool for achieving co-creation or as an objective of co-creation. The first
interpretation is most common, analysing dialogue between teachers and students as a
required tool or the primary resource for co-creation (e.g. Cook-Sather & Kaur, 2022;
Phillips & Napan, 2016). The insights from these articles emphasise that dialogue is cen-
tral to establishing collaborative partnerships between staff and students. For co-creation
to have positive outcomes, a foundation of open and equitable communication, where all
participants feel valued and heard, is needed (e.g. Bergmark & Westman, 2016; Smør-
vik & Vespestad, 2020). Through dialogue, insights into others’ perspectives and mutual
understanding can be reached (e.g. Lubicz-Nawrocka & Bovill, 2021; Matthews etal.,
2023), and all parties can express their needs and collaborate to adapt educational prac-
tices to initiate development or change (e.g. da Silva etal., 2020; Dollinger etal., 2018).
Such preconditions are often considered critical for successful co-creation initiatives
(e.g. Higgins etal., 2019; Martens etal., 2020).
As a tool for co-creation, dialogue has been found to accomplish varied outcomes.
Some researchers have found that dialogue can enhance student partners’ commitment
to engage in co-creation, as well as their development of language, confidence, empa-
thy, and sense of community (e.g. Cook-Sather & Des-Ogugua, 2019; Scoles etal.,
2021). Moreover, dialogue emerged as a central resource for collaborative learning
and knowledge construction. Holmes (2020) found that by engaging in dialogue, par-
ticipants could achieve greater diversity in perspectives, and Mercer-Mapstone etal.
(2021) showed how such diversity could enrich the co-creation experience. In sev-
eral articles, dialogue was highlighted as a source of insight and deeper engagement
in teaching and learning, which enabled positive changes that responded to students’
voices (e.g. Matthews & Dollinger, 2022; Matthews etal., 2023).
Researchers who discuss dialogue as an objective for co-creation emphasised the
importance of interactions between staff and students. Gheihman etal. (2021) indicated
that the relationship established through co-creational practices allowed for more open
and informal interactions, while Gregory-Ellis (2022) discussed how co-creational
practices contributed to the development of communication skills. Kaur etal.’s (2019)
findings suggested that co-creation contributed to a dialogic classroom culture. Cook-
Sather and Des-Ogugua (2019) suggested that participating in co-creational practices
facilitated more conversations about the experiences of underrepresented students.
Whether dialogue is considered a tool or an objective for co-creation indicates a
shift in analytical interests regarding the primary aim of the interactions. These uses
of this concept are not necessarily conflicting, and our analyses even suggest that some
researchers describe dialogue as both a tool and an objective (Cook-Sather & Des-
Ogugua, 2019).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Positioning
Key objectives of co-creation include positioning students as agents for academic develop-
ment and challenging hierarchical relationships between students and staff (e.g. Mercer-
Mapstone & Bovill, 2020; Seale etal., 2015). We interpreted two different conceptualisa-
tions of positioning across the data corpus. In line with the definition we presented (see
the ‘Coding and data extraction’ section), the term is used to suggest that positions are
formed and negotiated interactionally and that positions may change between contexts or
develop within one context (Abbot & Cook-Sather, 2020; Kaur etal., 2019). In line with
this, Jardine (2020) presented the only explicit definition we found in the corpus, describ-
ing positioning as happening ‘through interactions between individuals, and positions are
influenced by the time and context in which the individuals are situated’ (p. 51). Other
articles conceptualised positioning as describing different roles (e.g. student, staff, leader,
or student representative) that people are given (e.g. Chan & Luo, 2022; Hamerski etal.,
2021). This conceptualisation regards positions as more static and less interactionally
negotiable. Both these conceptualisations point to traditionally hierarchical structures in
higher education that lead to asymmetries and power imbalances between students and
staff. These power structures are often described as immanent parts of student and staff
roles (e.g. Bergmark & Westman, 2016; Elliott etal., 2021) and central conditions for the
interactions (e.g. Bovill & Woolmer, 2019; Cook-Sather, 2020).
We found two main focuses in the analyses of the relationship between positions and
co-creation: (a) positions are analysed as a challenge or an obstacle to overcome, and
(b) co-creation activities are found to influence and change positions. These focuses are
not in conflict, and we interpret the differences as methodological choices.
Research analysing positions as a challenge to overcome described positions as shap-
ing how co-creation was approached and enacted (e.g. Abbot & Cook-Sather, 2020;
Matthews etal., 2019a). Obstacles were sometimes described as academic staff being
positioned as ‘experts’, potentially causing them to disregard student ideas, and/or stu-
dents viewing their knowledge as inferior, which inhibited them from voicing their per-
spectives (e.g. Cook-Sather etal., 2020b; Healey & France, 2022). Alhadad etal. (2021)
suggested that unlearning expectations related to traditional asymmetries could be dif-
ficult. For staff, such obstacles could consist of fear of giving up control (Higgins etal.,
2019) or unconsciously reverting to teacher mode, not being conscious enough of their
embodied power (Davis & Parmenter, 2021). Students were found to have anxiety about
the unknown (Bovill etal., 2016), being intimidated by the given responsibility (Hig-
gins etal., 2019), experiencing tension about simultaneously being treated as a student
and a professional, and becoming overwhelmed by the workload (Gregory-Ellis, 2022).
Articles indicating that co-creation shifts traditional positions (e.g. Dai & Matthews,
2023; Lubicz-Nawrocka & Bovill, 2021) often highlight the transformation of students’
roles from passive recipients to active participants who co-create and negotiate knowl-
edge (e.g. Bergmark & Westman, 2016; Liang & Matthews, 2021a). Cook-Sather (2020)
described student partners recognising their role in partnerships as changing their posi-
tions in ways that legitimised their interactional contributions. Other articles showed
that academics could become co-learners (e.g. Abbot & Cook-Sather, 2020; Liang etal.,
2020). Lock etal. (2021) found that participating in co-creational activities could repo-
sition students from recipients of others’ decisions to decision-makers.
The different positions with which students and staff enter into co-creational prac-
tices are described as central conditions for co-creational interactions (e.g. Bovill etal.,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
2011; Cook-Sather, 2020). These differences in positions are described as challenges
that need to be overcome, and changes are often described as objectives when co-creat-
ing (e.g. Riva etal., 2022; Scoles etal., 2021).
Voice
Underlying co-creation is the premise that students have unique perspectives on education.
For students’ experiences to become part of the co-creation process, they must voice their
opinions. The definitions of voice across the corpus varied. However, the one we presented
(see the‘Coding and data extraction’ section) seems wide enough to cover most of them.
Much like us, Fargo and Linares-Gray (2022) emphasise students’ perspectives, stating that
‘student voice refers to the values, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds of students that
inform instructional approaches based on student input’ (p. 633). Cook-Sather (2020) uses
voice both literally, referring to ‘the actual speaking of academic staff and students’, and
metaphorically, referring ‘to signal the sense of empowerment and agency these staff and
students feel when they are involved in co-creation of teaching and learning’ (p. 886). Few
articles apply the literal sense of voice, highlighting the speaking of individual students
(e.g. Chamunyounga etal., 2018; Matthews & Dollinger, 2022). In these cases, the context
is often classroom activities (e.g. Cook-Sather etal., 2020a; Luckner etal., 2019).
Metaphorical conceptualisations of voice are predominantly associated with student
voice and how students gain power to influence their educational situations when their
voices are heard in co-creation (e.g. Alhadad et al., 2021; Cook-Sather et al., 2020a).
Student voice is frequently used to describe students as active agents (e.g. Bovill etal.,
2011; Nixon etal., 2017) and is often associated with transformative change in educational
practices (e.g. Matthews etal., 2019b; Seale etal., 2015). Matthews and Dollinger (2022)
referred to the student voice movement stating that ‘the argument that students have an
authentic and valuable voice in the decisions that impact their learning and education has
become a phenomenon known as “student voice”’ (p. 555). Blau and Shamir-Inbal (2018)
emphasised the role of the educator in listening and valuing students’ views and empower-
ing students ‘to take a more active role in shaping or changing their learning’ (p. 316).
While Cook-Sather (2020) emphasised student partners’ capacity to give voice to stu-
dents who normally did not speak in class when representing other students, Matthews and
Dollinger (2022) problematised students speaking for others, noting the reduced potential
to speak for themselves when staff perceived them as representing other students. The plu-
ral term ‘voices’ is often used to emphasise that student groups are diverse and the need to
include voices from underrepresented groups (e.g. Luckner etal., 2019; Phillips & Napan,
2016).
We found two main analytical interpretations of the relationship between voice and
co-creation. Some studies focused on how hearing diverse voices contributes to the out-
come of co-creation, often regarding voice as a necessary precondition. Cook-Sather etal.
(2020a) exemplified this, showing how a student partner made an educator’s classroom
more inclusive by voicing her own and others’ experiences as underrepresented and under-
served groups and thus expanding the participants’ understanding of a situation. Similarly,
Matthews and Dollinger (2022) showed how co-creational practices could give staff access
to a diversity of student voices and, in this regard, promote democratic values. Kaur etal.
(2019) found that by exercising their voices in co-creational practices, students could con-
tribute to restructuring the traditional power balance between students and staff.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Other studies interpreted co-creation as a tool for participants to develop their voices.
Riva etal. (2022) indicated how participants in co-creational practices ‘expressed a sense
of “finding their voice” and of being heard’ (p. 923). Cook-Sather (2020) found that stu-
dents reported that their participation in co-creation helped them develop their voice.
Voice is sometimes described as a necessary precondition for co-creational activities
to occur; concurrently, co-creational practices are analysed as enhancing the development
of voice. We attribute these differences to methodological choices regarding analytical
focuses.
Agency
Student agency is considered a constructive force in higher education, which needs to be
supported and nurtured. Although only two articles defined agency across the data corpus,
the phenomenon described by the term is frequently discussed. Kaur and Noman (2020)
defined agency as ‘the opportunity to contribute, to voice their opinion, to have equal
opportunity to participate and to have experiences of ownership’ (p. 7), while Martel and
Garcías (2022) highlighted personal factors (such as individuals’ self-awareness) and exter-
nal factors related to the context. We interpret these descriptions to be in line with the defi-
nition we presented (see the‘Coding and data extraction’ section), both focusing on how
agency is developed through individuals’ interactions with the surroundings, comprising
situated factors and the individuals’ sense of agency. This is also in line with Bovill etal.
(2016), who tie agency to students gaining confidence and capacity, as well as assuming an
active role and developing their voices.
The relationship between agency and co-creation is interpreted analytically in two
ways. Some researchers have mentioned agency as a precondition for co-creation. Martel
and Garcías (2022) suggested that students must enact agency to contribute to educational
activities, such as co-creation. Similarly, Elliott etal. (2021) stated that individual agency
contributes to determining starting positions and thus the outset for co-creational practices.
Bovill etal. (2016) argued that participating in co-creation requires students to actively
engage and voice their opinions.
However, agency is most often analysed in terms of explaining students’ personal devel-
opment through their participation in co-creational practices. Researchers conveying this
analytical focus often view the agency as a capacity that can be cultivated through co-crea-
tion (e.g. Lubicz-Nawrocka, 2017; Ntem & Cook-Sather, 2018). Co-creational practices are
frequently characterised as empowering and are believed to contribute to the development
of students’ agency (e.g. Duda & Danielson, 2018; Green, 2019). Marquis (2017) described
this development as students ‘developing a new sense of themselves as active, collegial
contributors to teaching and learning’ (p. 42), while Matthews etal. (2018) described it as
part of ‘a progression towards a new “identity”’ (p. 962). Such findings are often substan-
tiated through interviews with participating students reporting a sense of empowerment,
increased confidence, and a sense of agency after participating in co-creational practices
(e.g. Dollinger & Lodge, 2020b; Kaur & Noman, 2020). Some examples are ‘I began to
feel I had a lot more agency and could be an agent of change within my classroom spaces’
(Gibson & Cook-Sather, 2020), ‘This project allowed me to see myself as a crucial element
of the project—influencing it in meaningful ways’ (Lock etal., 2021), and ‘(…) left me
feeling that I could do anything I put my mind too’ (Alhadad etal., 2021). Participation in
co-creational practices is also connected to increased confidence (de Bie, 2022) and self-
efficacy (Godbold etal., 2022).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
The view that students’ agency is cultivated through co-creation activities by the edu-
cators organising them is widely held (e.g. Fleischman etal., 2019; Lubicz-Nawrocka &
Bovill, 2021). Cates etal. (2018) exemplify this view, stating, ‘we give students agency and
let them know their power and value’, and ‘allow them the agency’ (p. 42, our emphasis).
Agency is analysed both as a precondition for co-creational practices, something stu-
dents need to exercise for these practices to occur, and as an outcome, something students
build through co-creational practices. We interpret this as a difference in analytical focus.
Agency can be discussed in both ways, indicating that exercising agency is a skill that can
be trained and developed. Students need to exercise agency to participate in co-creational
practices, and this ability can be strengthened through such participation.
Theoretical relationships amongdialogue, positioning, voice,
andagency
Research on co-creation affords insights into how co-creational practices are perceived by
participants and how participating in such interactions can have positive outcomes for both
participating individuals and organising institutions. In this section, we begin by discuss-
ing how previous research has used dialogue, positioning, voice, and agency in relation to
each other and to co-creational practices before we discuss how this knowledge can inform
future research on co-creation and the design of co-creational practices.
Our data corpus displayed different focuses when analysing the relations between the
four key concepts and co-creation. Some research has displayed an analytical focus on
how improved dialogues, equal positions, and students exercising agency and voice could
become positive outcomes of co-creational practices. Other focuses discussed exercising
agency and voice as necessary preconditions for a fruitful process, dialogue as a pivotal
tool, and unequal positions as obstacles to overcome. These descriptions span the corpus
and are not in conflict. A single article sometimes alternated analytical focus, and only a
few articles discussed all four concepts. Still, our findings demonstrated a strong intercon-
nectedness of dialogue, positioning, voice, and agency. Figure2 provides a visual represen-
tation of the relationships reported in our findings, constituting an analytical framework.
Our analyses showed that dialogue was often interpreted as the primary tool for co-crea-
tion. We infer an even closer relationship between co-creation and dialogue, with dialogue
embodying the interactions constituting co-creation. However, dialogue and co-creation are
not synonyms. Following Bovill etal.’s (2016) definition (see the‘Introduction’ section),
what separates co-creational dialogues from other dialogues is the potential outcome: the
aim is to create ‘components of curricula and/or pedagogical approaches’ (p. 196). We per-
ceive dialogue as paramount, and in the framework, dialogue underpins co-creational inter-
actions in the two cyclical processes between (a) dialogue and positions and (b) dialogue
and agency and voice.
The cyclical process between positions and dialogue depicts how positions as staff and
students form the inception of co-creation. Simultaneously, alterations in these positions
are perceived as pivotal for productive co-creation (e.g. Alhadad etal., 2021; Matthews
etal., 2019a). Such alterations are frequently shown to occur when positions are renegoti-
ated during dialogues (e.g. Abbot & Cook-Sather, 2020; Riva etal., 2022), and these rene-
gotiated positions may influence how participants engage in further dialogues (e.g. Dai
etal., 2024; Luo etal., 2019).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
The cyclical process between dialogue and agency and voice is highlighted by two ele-
ments in our findings: (a) We found that participation in co-creational dialogues requires
participants to voice their perspectives (e.g. Kaur et al., 2019; Matthews & Dollinger,
2022). To do so, participants need to exercise agency (e.g. Bovill etal., 2016; Martel &
Garcías, 2022). Thus, both agency and voice constitute necessary preconditions for co-cre-
ational dialogues. (b) Concurrently, engagement in such dialogues can foster participants’
development of agency and voice (e.g. Gibson & Cook-Sather, 2020; Iqbal etal., 2023).
Importantly, through dialogue, these cycles also influence each other. How students
and staff are positioned influences their agency, which again influences their use of voice.
Cook-Sather (2020) exemplified this, showing how students positioned as staff partners
strengthened their agency and ability to voice their opinions by experiencing that their con-
tributions were heard and valued in dialogues. At the same time, repositioning can tran-
spire when students and staff engage in dialogues exercising agency and voice, as students
using their voices can gain authority and influence (e.g. Perello-Marín etal., 2018; Riva
etal., 2022).
Fig. 2 Analytical framework for co-creational interactions
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
The dialogic theories proposed by Bakhtin (1986) and Linell (1998) provide explana-
tions of how the cyclical processes described above unfold through interactions, point-
ing out how participants’ utterances meet, build on, and influence each other, collectively
developing new meanings. The theories further emphasise the collaborative nature of dia-
logues, where meanings are collaboratively and situationally negotiated, and underscore the
importance of engaged contributions from all participants. Epistemologically, dialogism
allows us to analytically approach linguistic meanings as open potentials negotiated and
built contextually through interactions rather than fixed, coded meanings (Linell, 1998).
We argue that this epistemological approach offers significant benefits when studying co-
creation, as it allows for analysing knowledge as generated through the co-creation prac-
tices. Such studies can yield valuable insights into co-creational processes and outcomes.
The above analytical framework serves two purposes: (a) It can inform analyses of
co-creational interactions and explain how different interactional moves influence other
aspects of the interactions, and, thus, the outcome of these interactions. For example, the
framework elucidates the interconnectedness of the four key concepts, illustrating how co-
creational dialogues can facilitate the development of positions, agency, and voice. This,
in turn, through the iterative cycles of the processes, sets new conditions for further dia-
logues. (b) The analytical framework can serve as a model for educators, reminding them
of key aspects to consider when designing co-creational activities and engaging in co-crea-
tional interactions. For instance, the framework emphasises the importance of considering
how educators, through various interactional moves in dialogues, can position students in
ways that support their agency to voice their opinions. Thus, the model can serve as a valu-
able tool for developing best practices in educational settings.
Implications forfuture research
This systematic review demonstrates that research has generated extensive knowledge
of participants’ perceptions of and reflections about co-creation. This knowledge is
based on analyses of participants’ reported experiences from the interactional processes
constituting co-creational practices, mainly investigated through methods such as inter-
views, autoethnography, surveys, and narratives (‘RQ1: What characterises research
on co-creation in higher education’ section). One avenue for future research could be
to focus on details of co-creational interactions as they evolve insitu. Empirical data
from recorded observations could enable analyses of how such interactions unfold and
how they influence aspects such as dialogue, positioning, voice, and agency. Although
the contexts of such studies differ from those of higher education, analyses of recorded
observations from classroom interactions have enhanced our understanding of dialogue,
positioning, voice, and agency in primary and secondary education. For instance, Clarke
etal. (2016) showed how educators can foster student agency by inviting participation;
Snell and Lefstein (2018) showed how teachers influenced students’ perceptions of their
positions in the classroom by including or excluding them in plenary discussions; and
Furberg and Silseth (2022) illustrated how using students’ everyday understandings as
resources can position them as authoritative participants in interactions. These studies
highlight how analyses of recorded observations can deepen our understanding of edu-
cator–student interactions and their impact on dialogue, positions, agency, and voice.
In the context of co-creation, studies of recorded interactions could offer (a) valuable
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
guidance for students and educational practitioners on how to engage in and facilitate
future co-creational interactions and (b) insights into how and why these practices can
succeed.
We address some research gaps to which analyses of recorded observations can add
knowledge:
• Dialogue is well documented as a tool for co-creation through which insight into
others’ perspectives and mutual understanding can be achieved. However, how stu-
dents and educators engage in dialogues in ways that give such outcomes is underex-
plored.
• Our findings underscore that the differences in the positions with which participants
enter co-creation influence their participation in co-creational dialogues. Yet, how
positions are negotiated interactionally is scantly explored.
• Prior research highlights co-creation as a tool through which staff and students can
develop a voice, which is regarded as a necessary precondition for co-creational
practices. Additional knowledge on how students’ and staff’s engagement in co-crea-
tional interactions can lead to the development of voice is needed.
• Across our data corpus, agency is studied through participants’ accounts. Thus, the
current research mainly examines participants’ sense of agency. Additional knowl-
edge on how co-creational interactions influence the situational aspects of agency
and how these interactions can be facilitated to build staff and student agency is
needed.
In addition, we also see the need for more longitudinal studies:
• The analytical framework (‘Theoretical relationships among dialogue, positioning,
voice, and agency’ section) highlights the cyclical nature of co-creational practices.
Such processes necessitate time and iterations to ensure development. We hypothesise
that these cycles also reflect institutional approaches to co-creation. Thus, longitudinal
research following institutions and research environments through cycles and iterations
of co-creational initiatives is needed.
Limitations
A vital part of the literature reporting from co-creational practices consists of reflective
essays, case studies, and articles that are not peer-reviewed. Student voices are often promi-
nent in this literature, and as students collaborating with staff is at the core of co-creation, it
is a limitation that we have not included such literature in this review. Further, we included
only literature published in English, potentially excluding articles from other languages
and regions. Despite this, we are confident in the robustness of our results due to the large
data corpus. Yet, we encourage future research to include articles from other sources and in
several languages and to explore and compare with the findings of this systematic review.
Funding Open access funding provided by OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
References that are not part of our data corpus:
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30(1), 109–137. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. anthro. 30.1. 109
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). University of Minnesota
Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5749/j. ctt22 727z1
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres
and other late essays (pp. 60–102). University of Texas Press.
Bovill, C. (2020a). Co-creating learning and teaching: Towards relational pedagogy in higher education.
Critical Publishing.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3(2), 77–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1191/ 14780 88706 qp063 oa
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Hand-
book of research methods in health social sciences. Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 981- 10-
5251-4_ 103
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic
analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14780 887.
2020. 17692 38
Clarke, S. N., Howley, I., Resnick, L., & Rose, C. P. (2016). Student agency to participate in dialogic sci-
ence discussions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 27–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lcsi.
2016. 01. 002
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A
guide for faculty. John Wiley & Sons.
Cook-Sather, A. (2022). Co-creating equitable teaching and learning: Structuring student voice into higher
education. Harvard Education Press.
Furberg, A., & Silseth, K. (2022). Invoking student resources in whole-class conversations in science educa-
tion: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 31(2), 278–316. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 10508 406. 2021. 19545 21
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1525/ aa. 1994. 96.3. 02a00 100
Harper, S. R., & Quale, S. J. (2009). Student engagement in higher education. Routledge. https:// doi. org/ 10.
4324/ 97802 03894 125
Heath, C., & Hindmarch, J. (2002). Analysing interaction. In T. May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action
(pp. 99–121). Sage Publications.
Hilppö, J., Lipponen, L., Kumpulainen, K., & Virlander, M. (2016). Sense of agency and everyday life:
Children’s perspective. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 50–59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
lcsi. 2015. 10. 001
Holland, D., Lachicotte, J. W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Har-
vard University Press.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Hulland, J. (2020). Conceptual review papers: Revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory.
AMS Review, 10(1–2), 27–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13162- 020- 00168-7
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives (Vol. 3).
John Benjamins Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1075/ impact.3
Linell, P. (2003). What is dialogism? Aspects and elements of a dialogical approach to language, communi-
cation and cognition. Lecture first presented at Växjö University, October 2000. Department of Com-
munication Studies, Linköping University. This version: 2003-02-26.
Mercer, N. (2019). Language and the joint creation of knowledge: The selected works of Neil Mercer. Rout-
ledge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97804 29400 759
Nieminen, J. H., & Carless, D. (2023). Feedback literacy: A critical review of an emerging concept. Higher
Education, 85(6), 1381–1400. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 022- 00895-9
Omland, M., & Rødnes, K. A. (2020). Building agency through technology-aided dialogic teaching.
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 26, 100406. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lcsi. 2020. 100406
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., & Mulrow, C. D. (2021). The
PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(7), 1.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. n71
Säljö, R. (2021). The conceptualization of learning in learning research 1: From introspectionism and
conditioned reflexes to meaning-making and performativity insituated practices. In G. Kress, S.
Selander, R. Säljö, & C. Wulf (Eds.), Learning as social practice: Beyond education as an indi-
vidual enterprise (pp. 146–168). Routledge.
Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2018). “Low ability,” participation, and identity in dialogic pedagogy. Ameri-
can Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 40–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00028 31217 730010
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic
reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1471- 2288-8- 45
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11(1), 1–15.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on
educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347–361. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 01411 92070 15322 28
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development.
Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 1–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jmkg. 74.1.1
The data corpus:
Previous review‑articles are marked with *.
Key articles included in our preliminary studies are marked with **.
Abbot, S., & Cook-Sather, A. (2020). The productive potential of pedagogical disagreements in class-
room-focused student-staff partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(7),
1396–1409. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2020. 17353 15
Alhadad, S. S., Vasco, D., Williams, J. C., Dizon, P., Kapnias, R. L., Khan, S. B., etal. (2021). Learning,
unlearning, and relearning together: Unmasking power in a students as partners program using
collaborative autoethnography. Student Success, 12(2), 38–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5204/ ssj. 1934
Ali, X., Tatam, J., Gravett, K., & Kinchin, I. M. (2021). Partnership values: An evaluation of student
staff research projects at a UK higher education institution. International Journal for Students as
Partners, 5(1), 12–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v5i1. 4354
*Alkhannani, B. M. (2021). The effectiveness of collaborative teaching and learning and engaging stu-
dents as partners on English language teaching in Saudi Arabia. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 11(10), 1288–1294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17507/ tpls. 1110. 17
Aumiller, R. L. (2021). Decentering power: Students as partners in dance education. Teaching Artist
Journal, 19(1–2), 49–66. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15411 796. 2021. 19727 65
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
*Barradell, S., & Bell, A. (2021). Is health professional education making the most of the idea of ’stu-
dents as partners’? Insights from a qualitative research synthesis. Advances in Health Sciences
Education, 26, 513–580. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10459- 020- 09998-3
Barrineau, S., & Anderson, L. (2018). Learning" betwixt and between": Opportunities and challenges
for student-driven partnership. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 16–32. https://
doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v2i1. 3224
Baumber, A., Kligyte, G., van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., & Pratt, S. (2020). Learning together: A transdisci-
plinary approach to student-staff partnerships in higher education. Higher Education Research &
Development, 39(3), 395–410. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2019. 16844 54
Begley, G. S., Berkey, B., Roe, L., & Schuldt, H. E. (2019). Becoming partners: Faculty come to appre-
ciate undergraduates as teaching partners in a service-learning teaching assistant program. Inter-
national Journal for Students as Partners, 3(1), 89–105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v3i1. 3669
Bell, A. (2016). Students as co-inquirers in Australian higher education: Opportunities and challenges.
Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 81–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 20343/ teach learn inqu.4. 2.8
Bell, A., Potter, S., Morris, L. A., Strbac, M., Grundy, A., & Yawary, M. Z. (2019). Evaluating the process
and product of a student-staff partnership for curriculum redesign in film studies. Innovations in Edu-
cation and Teaching International, 56(6), 740–750. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2019. 15887 68
Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2016). Co-creating curriculum in higher education: Promoting demo-
cratic values and a multidimensional view on learning. International Journal for Academic Devel-
opment, 21(1), 28–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13601 44X. 2015. 11207 34
Björklund, T. A., Keipi, T., Celik, S., & Ekman, K. (2019). Learning across silos: Design Factories as hubs
for co-creation. European Journal of Education, 54(4), 552–565. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ejed. 12372
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2018). Digital technologies for promoting "student voice" and co-creating
learning experience in an academic course. Instructional Science, 46, 315–336. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s11251- 017- 9436-y
Botha, A. J. M., & Steyn, A. A. (2020). Student-faculty partnership in design: Evaluating a co-creation prac-
tice and sharing of findings within the South African higher education context. South African Journal
of Higher Education, 34(5), 166–176. https:// doi. org/ 10. 20853/ 34-5- 4270
**Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course
design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic
Development, 16(2), 133–145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13601 44X. 2011. 568690
**Bovill, C. (2014). An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and
the USA. Innovations in education and teaching international, 51(1), 15–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
14703 297. 2013. 770264
**Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential
challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional
norms and ensuring inclusivity in student-staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71, 195–208. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 015- 9896-4
Bovill, C. (2019). Student-staff partnerships in learning and teaching: An overview of current practice and
discourse. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 43(4), 385–398. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03098
265. 2019. 16606 28
Bovill, C., & Woolmer, C. (2019). How conceptualisations of curriculum in higher education influence stu-
dent-staff co-creation in and of the curriculum. Higher Education, 78(3), 407–422. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s10734- 018- 0349-8
Bovill, C. (2020b). Co-creation in learning and teaching: The case for a whole-class approach in higher edu-
cation. Higher education, 79(6), 1023–1037. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 019- 00453-w
Bressler, A., Quintana, R. M., & Zint, M. (2022, September). Co-creation of a massive open online course:
An exploration of the motives and motive fulfillment of a faculty member and student coinstructors.
In Frontiers in education (Vol. 7, p. 1010018). Frontiers. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ feduc. 2022. 10100 18
Brown, A. (2018). Engaging students as partners in developing online learning and feedback activities for
first-year fluid mechanics. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(1), 26–39. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 03043 797. 2016. 12323 72
Brown, J., & Velikov, N. (2019). Students at the centre of a virtuous circle: effective minimalist training through
strong staff-student partnerships. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 5(1).
Bunnell, S., Lyster, M., Greenland, K., Mayer, G., Gardner, K., Leise, T., etal. (2021). From protest to pro-
gress through partnership with students: Being human in STEM (HSTEM). International Journal for
Students as Partners, 5(1), 26–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v5i1. 4243
Carey, P. (2013). Representation and student engagement in higher education: A reflection on the views
and experiences of course representatives. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 37(1), 71–88.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03098 77X. 2011. 644775
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Cates, R. M., Madigan, M. R., & Reitenauer, V. L. (2018). ’Locations of Possibility’: Critical perspectives
on partnership. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 33–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/
ijsap. v2i1. 3341
Chadha, D., Inguva, P. K., Bui Le, L., & Kogelbauer, A. (2023). How far do we go? Involving students as
partners for redesigning teaching. Educational Action Research, 31(4), 620–632. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 09650 792. 2022. 20589 74
Chamunyonga, C., Burbery, J., Caldwell, P., Rutledge, P., & Hargrave, C. (2018). Radiation therapy students
as partners in the development of alternative approaches to assessing treatment planning skills. Journal
of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 49(3), 309–315. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmir. 2018. 04. 023
Chan, C. K. Y., & Luo, J. (2022). Towards an inclusive student partnership: rethinking mentors’ disposition
and holistic competency development in near-peer mentoring. Teaching in higher education, 27(7),
874–891. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2020. 17516 06
Chan, K., & Stacey, P. (2022). Desirable difficulties and student-faculty partnership. Innovations in Edu-
cation and Teaching International, 59(3), 242–252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2020. 18619 64
Chilvers, L., Fox, A., & Bennett, S. (2021). A student-staff partnership approach to course enhancement: Prin-
ciples for enabling dialogue through repurposing subject-specific materials and metaphors. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 58(1), 14–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2019. 16755 30
**Cook-Sather, A., & Des-Ogugua, C. (2019). Lessons we still need to learn on creating more inclusive and
responsive classrooms: Recommendations from one student-faculty partnership programme. Interna-
tional Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(6), 594–608. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13603 116. 2018. 14419 12
**Cook-Sather, A. (2020). Respecting voices: How the co-creation of teaching and learning can sup-
port academic staff, underrepresented students, and equitable practices. Higher Education, 79(5),
885–901. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 019- 00445-w
Cook-Sather, A., Becker, J. W., & Giron, A. (2020a). While we are here: Resisting hegemony and foster-
ing inclusion through rhizomatic growth via student-faculty pedagogical partnership. Sustainabil-
ity, 12(17), 6782. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 76782
Cook-Sather, A., Gauthier, L., & Foster, M. (2020b). The role of growth mindsets in developing peda-
gogical partnership programs: Findings from a cross-institutional study. The Journal of Educa-
tional Innovation, Partnership and Change, 6(1).
Cook-Sather, A., & Kaur, A. (2022). Embracing epistemic confidence, open-mindedness, and cocrea-
tion: An exploration of how the psychological constructs of attitudes and intentions can inform
staff contributions to successful student-staff partnership. The Journal of Educational Innovation,
Partnership and Change, 8(2).
Cosker, E., Favier, V., Gallet, P., Raphael, F., Moussier, E., Tyvaert, L., etal. (2021). Tutor-student part-
nership in practice OSCE to enhance medical education. Medical Science Educator, 31, 1803–
1812. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40670- 021- 01421-9
*Cruz, M. D. F., Alves, H., & Gouveia Rodrigues, R. (2022). A service-dominant logic of co-creation in
higher education: Emerging topics and conceptualizations. Journal of Marketing for Higher Edu-
cation, 1–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08841 241. 2022. 21349 57
Cullinane, M., & O’Sullivan, S. (2020). Evaluating community-based research: Hearing the views of
student research partners. International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(2), 45–60. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i2. 4203
Curran, R., & Millard, L. (2016). A partnership approach to developing student capacity to engage and
staff capacity to be engaging: Opportunities for academic developers. International Journal for
Academic Development, 21(1), 67–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13601 44X. 2015. 11202 12
Curran, R. (2017). Students as partners-good for students, good for staff: A study on the impact of part-
nership working and how this translates to improved student-staff engagement. International Jour-
nal for Students as Partners, 1(2), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v1i2. 3089
Curtis, N. A., & Anderson, R. D. (2021). Moving toward student-faculty partnership in systems-level
assessment: A qualitative analysis. International Journal for Students as Partners, 5(1), 57–75.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v5i1. 4204
da Silva, M., da Silva, L. C. A., & Brambilla, F. R. (2020). Value Co-creation: A study of life quality
at an university in the south Brazil. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 11(3),
833–852. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14807/ ijmp. v11i3. 1026
Dai, K., & Matthews, K. E. (2023). ’Students as partners rather than followers but…’: understanding academ-
ics’ conceptions of changing learner-teacher relationships in Chinese higher education. Higher Edu-
cation Research & Development, 42(6), 1362–1376. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2022. 21356 90
Dai, K., Matthews, K. E., & Shen, W. (2024). ’It is difficult for students to contribute’: investigating
possibilities for pedagogical partnerships in Chinese Universities. Teaching in Higher Education,
1-15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2021. 20157 52
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Daukšienė, E., Trepulė, E., Volungevičienė, A., Šadauskas, M., & Ehlers, U. (2020). How to become an
Open Educator? Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(2), 51–60.
Davis, C., & Parmenter, L. (2021). Student-staff partnerships at work: epistemic confidence, research
engaged teaching and vocational learning in the transition to higher education. Educational Action
Research, 29(2), 292–309. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09650 792. 2020. 17929 58
**de Bie, A. (2022). Respectfully distrusting ’Students as Partners’ practice in higher education: Apply-
ing a mad politics of partnership. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(6), 717–737. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2020. 17360 23
Delbridge, R., Garvey, L., Mackelprang, J. L., Cassar, N., Ward-Pahl, E., Egan, M., & Williams, A.
(2022). Working at a cultural interface: Co-creating Aboriginal health curriculum for health pro-
fessions. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1483–1498. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
07294 360. 2021. 19279 99
Dianati, S., & Oberhollenzer, Y. (2020). Reflections of students and staff in a project-led partnership:
Contextualised experiences of students-as-partners. International Journal for Students as Part-
ners, 4(1), 1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i1. 3974
Díaz-Méndez, M., Paredes, M. R., & Saren, M. (2019). Improving society by improving education
through service-dominant logic: Reframing the role of students in higher education. Sustainabil-
ity, 11(19), 5292. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su111 95292
Dickerson, C., Jarvis, J., & Stockwell, L. (2016). Staff-student collaboration: Student learning from
working together to enhance educational practice in higher education. Teaching in Higher Educa-
tion, 21(3), 249–265. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2015. 11362 79
Dickinson, L., & Fox, A. (2016). Who owns the student voice? The Journal of Educational Innovation,
Partnership and Change, 2(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 21100/ jeipc. v2i1. 233
**Dollinger, M., Lodge, J., & Coates, H. (2018). Co-creation in higher education: Towards a concep-
tual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(2), 210–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
08841 241. 2018. 14667 56
Dollinger, M., & Lodge, J. (2020a). Student-staff co-creation in higher education: An evidence informed
model to support future design and implementation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 42(5), 532–546. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13600 80X. 2019. 16636 81
Dollinger, M., & Lodge, J. (2020b). Understanding value in the student experience through student staff
partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 940–952. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 07294 360. 2019. 16957 51
Dollinger, M., & Vanderlelie, J. (2021). Closing the loop: Co-designing with students for greater mar-
ket orientation. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 31(1), 41–57. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
08841 241. 2020. 17575 57
Dollinger, M., Salisbury, F., & Davis, K. (2022). Unrealised Potential: A survey of students as partners
in Australian university libraries. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1-16. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 13614 533. 2022. 21384 77
Dollinger, M., Tai, J., Jorre St Jorre, T., Ajjawi, R., Krattli, S., Prezioso, D., & McCarthy, D. (2023). Student
partners as co-contributors in research: a collective auto ethnographic account. Higher Education
Research & Development, 42(6), 1377–1390. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2022. 21393 59
Doyle, E., Buckley, P., & Whelan, J. (2018). Assessment co-creation: An exploratory analysis of oppor-
tunities and challenges based on student and instructor perspectives. Teaching in Higher Educa-
tion. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2018. 14980 77
Doyle, E., Buckley, P., & McCarthy, B. (2021). The impact of content co-creation on academic achieve-
ment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(3), 494–507. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
02602 938. 2020. 17828 32
Doyle, E., & Buckley, P. (2022). The impact of co-creation: an analysis of the effectiveness of student
authored multiple choice questions on achievement of learning outcomes. Interactive Learning
Environments, 30(9), 1726–1735. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2020. 17771 66
Duda, G. K., & Danielson, M. A. (2018). Collaborative curricular (re) construction-Tracking faculty and
student learning impacts and outcomes five years later. International Journal for Students as Part-
ners, 2(2), 39–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v2i2. 3568
Dunn, M., Loch, B., & Scott, W. (2018). The effectiveness of resources created by students as partners in
explaining the relevance of mathematics in engineering education. International Journal of Math-
ematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(1), 31–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00207 39X.
2017. 13387 71
Duque, L. C. (2014). A framework for analysing higher education performance: students’ satisfaction,
perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total quality management & business excel-
lence, 25(1-2), 21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14783 363. 2013. 807677
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Dusi, D., & Huisman, J. (2021). It’s more complex than it seems! Employing the concept of prosumption
to grasp the heterogeneity and complexity of student roles in higher education. Higher Education,
81(5), 935–948. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 020- 00588-1
Elliott, I. C., Robson, I., & Dudau, A. (2021). Building student engagement through co-production and
curriculum co-design in public administration programmes. Teaching Public Administration,
39(3), 318–336. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01447 39420 968862
El-Hakim, Y., King, S., Sims, S., & Lowe, T. (2016). Evaluating partnership and impact in the first year
of the Winchester Student Fellows Scheme. Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and
Change, 2(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 21100/ jeipc. v2i1. 257
Fagerstrøm, A., & Ghinea, G. (2013). Co-creation of value in higher education: using social network
marketing in the recruitment of students. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
35(1), 45–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13600 80X. 2013. 748524
Fargo, H. M., & Linares-Gray, R. H. (2022). Collaborating with Undergraduate Students on LIS Research.
Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 22(3), 631–649. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ pla. 2022. 0034
Felten, P., Abbot, S., Kirkwood, J., Long, A., Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Verwoord, R.
(2019). Reimagining the place of students in academic development. International Journal for Aca-
demic Development, 24(2), 192–203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13601 44X. 2019. 15942 35
Fisher, L. I., Piper, G., & Werthman, H. (2021). Agency through partnership in neurodiverse college learn-
ing communities. International Journal for Students as Partners, 5(2), 14–27. https:// doi. org/ 10.
15173/ ijsap. v5i2. 4398
Fitzgerald, R., Huijser, H., Meth, D., & Neilan, K. (2020). Student-staff partnerships in academic develop-
ment: The course design studio as a model for sustainable course-wide impact. International Journal
for Academic Development, 25(2), 134–146. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13601 44X. 2019. 16311 70
Fleischman, D., Raciti, M., & Lawley, M. (2015). Degrees of co-creation: An exploratory study of percep-
tions of international students’ role in community engagement experiences. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education, 25(1), 85–103. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08841 241. 2014. 986254
Fleischman, D., Raciti, M. M., & Lawley, M. (2019). Examining international students’ expectations of
third-party community engagement as a value co-creation mechanism. Journal for Advancement of
Marketing Education, 27(1).
Flint, A., & Millard, L. (2018). "Interactions with purpose": exploring staff understandings of student
engagement in a university with an ethos of staff-student partnership. International Journal for Stu-
dents as Partners, 2(2), 21–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v2i2. 3410
Foran, G., Knorr, K., & Taylor, R. L. (2020). Evaluating factors contributing to positive partnership work in
a students-as-consultants partnership program. International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(2),
27–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i2. 4095
Foss, A. M., Kohler, S., Kulkarni, S., Sutton, N., Schreiner, M. A., Centemero, N. S., etal. (2022). Triadic
partnerships: Evaluation of a group mentorship scheme. International Journal for Students as Part-
ners, 6(1), 199–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v6i1. 4858
Fujita, M., Harrigan, P., & Soutar, G. (2017). A netnography of a university’s social media brand commu-
nity: Exploring collaborative co-creation tactics. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science,
27(2), 148–164. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21639 159. 2017. 12837 98
Galpin, A., Beevers, D., Cassidy, S., Short, B., Panagiotidi, M., Bendall, R. C., et al. (2022). Values-led
curriculum co-creation: A curriculum re-innovation case study. The Curriculum Journal, 33(4), 553–
569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ curj. 154
Gheihman, G., Callahan, D. G., Onyango, J., Gooding, H. C., & Hirsh, D. A. (2021). Coproducing clini-
cal curricula in undergraduate medical education: Student and faculty experiences in longitudinal
integrated clerkships. Medical Teacher, 43(11), 1267–1277. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01421 59X. 2021.
19358 25
Gibson, S., & Cook-Sather, A. (2020). Politicised compassion and pedagogical partnership: A discourse and
practice for social justice in the inclusive academy. International Journal for Students as Partners,
4(1), 16–33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i1. 3996
Giles, A., Martin, S. C., Bryce, D., & Hendry, G. D. (2004). Students as partners in evaluation: Student and
teacher perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 681–685. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 02602 93042 00022 7227
Godbold, N., Hung, T. Y., & Matthews, K. E. (2022). Exploring the role of conflict in co-creation of cur-
riculum through engaging students as partners in the classroom. Higher Education Research & Devel-
opment, 41(4), 1104–1118. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2021. 18870 95
Goi, M. T., Kalidas, V., & Yunus, N. (2022). Developing and testing a customer value co-creation model of
higher education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1-25. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 08841 241. 2022. 20762 75
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Gravett, K., Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2020). ’More than customers’: Conceptions of students as
partners held by students, staff, and institutional leaders. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2574–
2587. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2019. 16237 69
Green, W. (2019). Engaging "students as partners" in global learning: Some possibilities and provocations.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(1), 10–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10283 15318
814266
Gregory-Ellis, C. (2022). Experiences of creating digital content for teaching and learning through working
in staff-student partnerships. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(2), 12–26. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v6i2. 5060
Hall, R. (2021). Students as partners in university innovation and entrepreneurship. Education+Training,
63(7/8), 1114–1137. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ET- 01- 2021- 0003
Hamerski, P. C., Irving, P. W., & McPadden, D. (2021). Learning assistants as student partners in introduc-
tory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 020107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1103/
PhysR evPhy sEduc Res. 17. 020107
Hanna-Benson, C., Kroeze, S., Gandhi, R., Haffie, T., & Wahl, L. M. (2020). Students as partners in col-
laborative course design and educational research. International Journal for Students as Partners,
4(2), 61–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i2. 4237
Hasan, N., & Rahman, A. A. (2016). Exploring factors that influence customer engagement in value co-
creation in higher education institutions using online platforms. Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology, 90(2), 247. https:// doi. org/ 10. 11113/ jt. v73. 4194
**Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2016). Students as partners: Reflections on a conceptual model.
Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 4(2), 8–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 20343/ teach learn inqu.4. 2.3
Healey, R. L., Lerczak, A., Welsh, K., & France, D. (2019). By any other name? The impacts of differing
assumptions, expectations, and misconceptions in bringing about resistance to student-staff partner-
ship. International Journal for Students as Partners, 3(1), 106–122. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap.
v3i1. 3550
Healey, R. L., & France, D. (2022). ’Every partnership [… is] an emotional experience’: towards a model of
partnership support for addressing the emotional challenges of student-staff partnerships. Teaching in
Higher Education, 1-19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2021. 20213 91
Higgins, D., Dennis, A., Stoddard, A., Maier, A. G., & Howitt, S. (2019). ’Power to empower’: concep-
tions of teaching and learning in a pedagogical co-design partnership. Higher Education Research &
Development, 38(6), 1154–1167. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2019. 16212 70
Hiradhar, P., & Groves, J. (2022a). More than you would expect: Development of graduate attributes in stu-
dent partners in a pedagogical consultancy partnership program. The Journal of Educational Innova-
tion, Partnership and Change, 8(1).
Hiradhar, P., & Groves, J. (2022b). More than you would expect: Gains in employability in student partners
in a pedagogical consultancy partnership program. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partner-
ship and Change, 8(1).
Hokanson, K., Breault, R. R., Lucas, C., Charrois, T. L., & Schindel, T. J. (2022). Reflective practice: co-
creating reflective activities for pharmacy students. Pharmacy, 2022(10), 28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/
pharm acy10 010028
Holen, R., Ashwin, P., Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2021). Student partnership: Exploring the dynamics in
and between different conceptualizations. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2726–2737. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2020. 17707 17
Holmes, A. J. (2020). "Being patient through the quiet": Partnering in problem-based learning in a graduate
seminar. International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(1), 34–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap.
v4i1. 3926
Iqbal, M. Z., Könings, K. D., Al-Eraky, M. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2023). It’s about time to involve
all stakeholders in co-creating faculty development programmes-exploring the perceptions of students
and teachers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(2), 239–251. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2022. 20307 81
Jardine, H. E. (2020). Positioning undergraduate teaching and learning assistants as instructional partners.
International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(1), 48–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i1. 4032
Jarvis, W., Halvorson, W., Sadeque, S., & Johnston, S. (2014). A large class engagement (LCE) model based
on service-dominant logic (SDL) and flipped classrooms. Education Research and Perspectives,
41(2014), 1–24.
Johnston, B. M. (2021). Students as partners: Peer-leading in an undergraduate mathematics course. Inter-
national Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(5), 795–806. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 00207 39X. 2020. 17952 87
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Judd, M. M., Spinelli, F., Szucs, B., Crisp, N., Groening, J., Collis, C., etal. (2021). Learning from the
pandemic: The impacts of moving student-staff partnerships online. Student Success, 12(3), 73–83.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 5204/ ssj. 1774
**Kaur, A., Awang-Hashim, R., & Kaur, M. (2019). Students’ experiences of co-creating classroom instruc-
tion with faculty-A case study in eastern context. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(4), 461–477.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2018. 14879 30
Kaur, A., & Noman, M. (2020). Investigating students’ experiences of Students as Partners (SaP) for basic
need fulfilment: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of University Teaching & Learning.
Practice, 17(1), 8. 10.53761/1.17.1.8.
Kehler, A., Verwoord, R., & Smith, H. (2017). We are the process: Reflections on the underestimation
of power in students as partners in practice. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1),
10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3176.
Kenway, A., Wilkinson, P., & Dowden-Smith, K. (2019). Students as contested: Exploring issues of student
identity and identification in educational spaces. International Journal for Students as Partners, 3(2),
11–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v3i2. 3770
Kiester, E., & Holowko, J. (2020). Redefining the roles of master and apprentice: Crossing the threshold
through the co-creation of a first-year seminar. International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(1),
66–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i1. 3826
Kligyte, G., Van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., Leslie, J., Key, T., Hooper, B., & Salazar, E. (2023). A Partnership
Outcome Spaces framework for purposeful student-staff partnerships. Teaching in Higher Education,
28(8), 1867–1885. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2021. 19409 24
Knight, G., Ordidge, H., Timothy, A., & Davis, M. (2022). Change agents: The impact of a student partner-
ship on the educational practice of a diverse higher education engineering faculty. International Jour-
nal for Students as Partners, 6(2), 27–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v6i2. 4947
Leem, B. H. (2021). An effect of value co-creation on student benefits in COVID-19 pandemic. Interna-
tional Journal of Engineering Business Management, 13, 18479790211058320. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 18479 79021 10583 20
Liang, Y., Dai, K., & Matthews, K. E. (2020). Students as partners: A new ethos for the transformation of
teacher and student identities in Chinese higher education. International Journal of Chinese Educa-
tion, 9(2), 131–150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1163/ 22125 868- 12340 124
Liang, Y., & Matthews, K. E. (2021a). Students as partners in China: Investigating the potentials and possi-
bilities for growing practices across universities. International Journal for Students as Partners, 5(2),
28–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v5i2. 4767
*Liang, Y., & Matthews, K. E. (2021b). Students as partners practices and theorisations in Asia: A scoping
review. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(3), 552–566. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294
360. 2020. 17737 71
**Liang, Y., & Matthews, K. E. (2023). Are Confucian educational values a barrier to engaging students
as partners in Chinese universities? Higher Education Research & Development, 42(6), 1453–1466.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2022. 21382 76
Lock, J., Johnson, C., Hill, L., Ostrowdun, C., & da Rosa dos Santos, L. (2021). From assistants to partners:
A framework for graduate students as partners in SoTL research. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 9(2),
n2. https:// doi. org/ 10. 20343/ teach learn inqu.9. 2.9
Lorber, P., Rooney, S., & Van Der Enden, M. (2019). Making assessment accessible: a student-staff part-
nership perspective. Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 488–502. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23752 696.
2019. 16955 24
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (2017). Co-creation of the curriculum: Challenging the status quo to embed partner-
ship. Journal of Educational Innovation Partnership and Change, 3(2). https:// doi. org/ 10. 21100/
jeipc. v3i2. 529
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. M. (2018). Students as partners in learning and teaching: The benefits of cocreation of
the curriculum. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 47–63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/
ijsap. v2i1. 3207
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., & Bovill, C. (2021). Do students experience transformation through co-creating cur-
riculum in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 28(7), 1744–1760. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 13562 517. 2021. 19280 60
Luckner, N., Purgathofer, P., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2019). Involving Students in the Co-Creation of a Complex.
Evolving Learning Environment. IxD&A, 42, 70–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 55612/s- 5002- 042- 004
Lundström, A., Savolainen, J., & Kostiainen, E. (2016). Case study: developing campus spaces through
co-creation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 12(6), 409–426. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 17452 007. 2016. 12080 77
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Luo, B., Matthews, K., & Chunduri, P. (2019). "Commitment to collaboration": What students have to say
about the values underpinning partnership practices. International Journal for Students as Partners,
3(1), 123–139. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v3i1. 3688
Maccabe, R., & Fonseca, T. D. (2021). ’Lightbulb’moments in higher education: peer-to-peer support in
engineering education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 29(4), 453–470. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 13611 267. 2021. 19523 93
Marquis, E. (2017). Undergraduate research and student-staff partnerships: Supporting the development of
student scholars at a Canadian teaching and learning institute. Scholarship and Practice of Under-
graduate Research, 1(1), 39–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18833/ spur/1/ 1/2
Marquis, E., Black, C., & Healey, M. (2017). Responding to the challenges of student-staff partnership: The
reflections of participants at an international summer institute. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6),
720–735. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2017. 12895 10
Marquis, E., Jayaratnam, A., Mishra, A., & Rybkina, K. (2018). "I feel like some students are better con-
nected": Students’ perspectives on applying for extracurricular partnership opportunities. Interna-
tional Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 64–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v2i1. 3300
Marquis, E., Guitman, R., Black, C., Healey, M., Matthews, K. E., & Dvorakova, L. S. (2019a). Grow-
ing partnership communities: What experiences of an international institute suggest about developing
student-staff partnership in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
56(2), 184–194. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 297. 2018. 14240 12
Marquis, E., Jayaratnam, A., Lei, T., & Mishra, A. (2019b). Motivations, barriers, & understandings:
How students at four universities perceive student-faculty partnership programs. Higher Education
Research & Development, 38(6), 1240–1254. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2019. 16383 49
Marquis, E., Power, E., & Yin, M. (2019c). Promoting and/or evading change: The role of student staff
partnerships in staff teaching development. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(10), 1315–
1330. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03098 77X. 2018. 14830 13
Marquis, E., Guitman, R., Nguyen, E., & Woolmer, C. (2021). ’It’sa little complicated for me’: Faculty
social location and experiences of pedagogical partnership. Higher Education Research & Develop-
ment, 40(6), 1191–1204. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2020. 18067 89
Martel,J. S. S., & Garcías, A. P., & (2022). Students’ agency and self-regulated skills through the lenses of
assessment co-creation in post-COVID-19 online and blended settings: A multi-case study. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 5334/ jime. 746
Martens, S. E., Spruijt, A., Wolfhagen, I. H., Whittingham, J. R., & Dolmans, D. H. (2019). A students’ take
on student-staff partnerships: experiences and preferences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Edu-
cation, 44(6), 910–919. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02602 938. 2018. 15463 74
Martens, S. E., Wolfhagen, I. H., Whittingham, J. R., & Dolmans, D. H. M. (2020). Mind the gap: Teach-
ers’ conceptions of student-staff partnership and its potential to enhance educational quality. Medical
teacher, 42(5), 529–535. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01421 59X. 2019. 17088 74
Matthews, K. E., Groenendijk, L. J., & Chunduri, P. (2017). We want to be more involved: Student percep-
tions of students as partners across the degree program curriculum. International Journal for Students
as Partners, 1(2), 51–66. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v1i2. 3063
Matthews, K. E. (2018). Engaging students as participants and partners: An argument for partnership with
students in higher education research on student success. International Journal of Chinese Education,
7(1), 42–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1163/ 22125 868- 12340 089
**Matthews, K. E., Dwyer, A., Hine, L., & Turner, J. (2018). Conceptions of students as partners. Higher
Education, 76, 957–971. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 018- 0257-y
***Matthews, K. E., Cook-Sather, A., Acai, A., Dvorakova, S. L., Felten, P., Marquis, E., & Mercer-Map-
stone, L. (2019a). Toward theories of partnership praxis: An analysis of interpretive framing in lit-
erature on students as partners in teaching and learning. Higher Education Research & Development,
38(2), 280–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2018. 15301 99
Matthews, K. E., Dwyer, A., Russell, S., & Enright, E. (2019b). It is a complicated thing: Leaders’ concep-
tions of students as partners in the neoliberal university. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2196–
2207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2018. 14822 68
*Matthews, K. E., Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Acai, A., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., et al.
(2019c). Enhancing outcomes and reducing inhibitors to the engagement of students and staff in
learning and teaching partnerships: Implications for academic development. International Journal for
Academic Development, 24(3), 246–259. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13601 44X. 2018. 15452 33
**Matthews, K. E., & Dollinger, M. (2022). Student voice in higher education: the importance of distin-
guishing student representation and student partnership. Higher Education, 85(3), 555–570. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 022- 00851-7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Matthews, K. E., Tai, J., Enright, E., Carless, D., Rafferty, C., & Winstone, N. (2023). Transgressing the
boundaries of ’students as partners’ and ’feedback’discourse communities to advance democratic
education. Teaching in higher education, 28(7), 1503–1517. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2021.
19038 54
Maunder, R. E., Cunliffe, M., Galvin, J., Mjali, S., & Rogers, J. (2013). Listening to student voices: Stu-
dent researchers exploring undergraduate experiences of university transition. Higher education, 66,
139–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10734- 012- 9595-3
Maunder, R. E. (2021). Staff and student experiences of working together on pedagogic research projects:
Partnerships in practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6), 1205–1219. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2020. 18099 99
McConnell, C. (2022). Exploring complex dynamics in partnership and the inherent role of emotion. The
Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 8(2).
McKenny, P., & Anderson, C. (2019). Quality with integrity: Working in partnership to conduct a program
review. International Journal for Students as Partners, 3(2), 27–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap.
v3i2. 3757
McLean, K., Penascino, S., McCauley, J., Russell, R., Martinez-Pitre, K., & Bish, D. (2022). Students as
assessment partners: A collaborative, qualitative evaluation of the Guns on Campus course-based
undergraduate research experience. International Journal for Students as Partners, 6(2), 44–60.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v6i2. 4790
Meeuwissen, S. N., Spruijt, A., van Veen, J. W., & de Goeij, A. F. (2019). Student participation in govern-
ance of medical and veterinary education: experiences and perspectives of student representatives and
program directors. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24(4), 665–690. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10459- 019- 09890-9
Mello, L. V., Tregilgas, L., Cowley, G., Gupta, A., Makki, F., Jhutty, A., & Shanmugasundram, A. (2017).
’Students-as-partners’ scheme enhances postgraduate students’ employability skills while addressing
gaps in bioinformatics education. Higher Education Pedagogies, 2(1), 43–57. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
23752 696. 2017. 13392 87
*Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Mar-
quis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners
in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 15–37. https:// doi. org/ 10.
15173/ ijsap. v1i1. 3119
Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Mercer, G. (2018). A dialogue between partnership and feminism: Deconstructing
power and exclusion in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(1), 137-143. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2017. 13911 98
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Guitman, R., & Acai, A. (2019). Reflecting gendered experiences of student staff
partnership: A student standpoint using poetic transcription. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(6),
809–818. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2019. 16027 61
Mercer-Mapstone, L. (2020). The student-staff partnership movement: Striving for inclusion as we push
sectorial change. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(2), 121–133. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 13601 44X. 2019. 16311 71
Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Bovill, C. (2020). Equity and diversity in institutional approaches to student staff
partnership schemes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2541–2557. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03075 079. 2019. 16207 21
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Islam, M., & Reid, T. (2021). Are we just engaging ’the usual suspects’? Challenges
in and practical strategies for supporting equity and diversity in student-staff partnership initiatives.
Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 227–245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2019. 16553 96
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Banas, K., Davila, Y., Huston, W., Meier, P., & Mekonnen, B. (2023). ’I’m not alone’:
outcomes of a faculty-wide initiative for co-creating inclusive science curricula through student-staff
partnership. International Journal for Academic Development, 28(2), 149–162. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 13601 44X. 2021. 19886 18
Mitchell, L., Seyedmehdi, S., & Spronken-Smith, R. (2017). PhD student ambassadors: partners in promot-
ing graduate research. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(2), 67–81. https:// doi. org/ 10.
15173/ ijsap. v1i2. 3213
Monico, C., & Kupatadze, K. (2020). Developing meaningful and practical global experiences through
student-faculty-community partnerships. International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(2), 9–26.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i2. 4002
Morales, J. B. (2021). De-territorialisations for pedagogical co-creation: Challenging traditionalistic ped-
agogies with students in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice,
18(7), 214–227. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53761/1. 18.7. 13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Morton, N., Vincent, W., Schiessel Harvey, N., & Curzon, R. (2017). ’Thank you for taking the time to
understand’: A critical reflection on peer-led interventions in early experiences of higher education.
International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 13(3), 163–179. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 15578 771. 2017. 13168 01
Murphy, R., Nixon, S., Brooman, S., & Fearon, D. (2017). "I am wary of giving too much power to stu-
dents:" Addressing the "but" in the Principle of Staff-Student Partnership. International Journal for
Students as Partners, 1(1), 67–82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v1i1. 3055
Nasri, N., Mohamad Nasri, N., & Abd Talib, M. A. (2023). Developing an inclusive curriculum: Under-
standing co-creation through cultural lens. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(9), 1072–
1083. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13603 116. 2021. 18806 52
Naylor, R., Dollinger, M., Mahat, M., & Khawaja, M. (2021). Students as customers versus as active agents:
Conceptualising the student role in governance and quality assurance. Higher Education Research &
Development, 40(5), 1026–1039. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2020. 17928 50
Nguyen, L. T. K., Lin, T. M., & Lam, H. P. (2021). The role of co-creating value and its outcomes in higher
education marketing. Sustainability, 13(12), 6724. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su131 26724
Nichols, R. M., & Lupascu, M. (2020). Undergraduate teaching assistants in Asia: A Singapore case study.
International Journal of Educational Research, 104, 101647. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijer. 2020. 101647
Nixon, S., Brooman, S., Murphy, B., & Fearon, D. (2017). Clarity, consistency and communication: Using
enhanced dialogue to create a course-based feedback strategy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 42(5), 812–822. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02602 938. 2016. 11953 33
Ntem, A., & Cook-Sather, A. (2018). Resistances and resiliencies in student-faculty pedagogical partnership.
International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 82–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v2i1. 3372
O’Shea, S., Bennett, S., & Delahunty, J. (2017). Engaging’students as partners’ in the design and development
of a peer-mentoring program. Student Success, 8(2), 113–116. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5204/ ssj. v8i2. 390
Ostrowdun, C., Friendly, R., Matthews, K., De Bie, A., & Roelofs, F. (2020). Holding space and engaging
with difference: Navigating the personal theories we carry into our pedagogical partnership practices.
International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(1), 82–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v4i1. 4093
Pappalepore, I., & Farrell, H. (2017). Redressing the balance: Inverted hierarchies in the tourism classroom.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 21, 144–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jhlste. 2016. 10. 001
Perello-Marín, M. R., Ribes-Giner, G., & Pantoja Díaz, O. (2018). Enhancing education for sustainable
development in environmental university programmes: A co-creation approach. Sustainability, 10(1),
158. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su100 10158
Peseta, T., & Bell, A. (2020). Seeing institutionally: a rationale for ’teach the University’ in student and staff
partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(1), 99–112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
07294 360. 2019. 16762 00
Peseta, T., Donoghue, A., Hifazat, S., Suresh, S., Beathe, A., Derbas, J., etal. (2021). Dancing with power
in ’We are the University: Students co-creating change’. Journal of University Teaching and Learning
Practice, 18(7), 258–272. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53761/1. 18.7. 16
Peters, J., & Mathias, L. (2018). Enacting student partnership as though we really mean it: Some Freirean
principles for a pedagogy of partnership. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(2), 53–70.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v2i2. 3509
Pezaro, S., Jenkins, M., & Bollard, M. (2022). Defining ’research inspired teaching’ and introducing a
research inspired online/offline teaching (riot) framework for fostering it using a co-creation approach.
Nurse Education Today, 108, 105163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. nedt. 2021. 105163
Phillips, L., & Napan, K. (2016). What’s in the’co’? Tending the tensions in co-creative inquiry in social
work education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(6), 827–844. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09518 398. 2016. 11628 69
Piotti, A., DeFelice, E., & Jackson, C. (2022). Benefits of community: Students-as-partners work by an
undergraduate student, a graduate student, and a faculty member. teaching & learning. Inquiry, 10.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 20343/ teach learn inqu. 10. 25
Rankin, J. C., Pearl, A., de St Jorre, T. J., McGrath, M. M., & Dyer, S. (2022). Delving into institutional
diversity messaging a cross-institutional analysis of student and faculty interpretations of undergrad-
uate experiences of equity, diversity, and inclusion in university websites. Teaching and Learning
Inquiry. https:// doi. org/ 10. 20343/ teach learn inqu. 10. 10
Reinholz, D. L., Corrales, A., & Stone-Johnstone, A. (2019). The access network: Supporting the construc-
tion of social justice physics identities through student partnerships. International Journal for Stu-
dents as Partners, 3(2), 44–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v3i2. 3788
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Ribes-Giner, G., & Rillo, A. P. (2016). Structural equation modeling of co-creation and its influence on the
student’s satisfaction and loyalty towards university. Journal of Computational and Applied Math-
ematics, 291, 257–263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cam. 2015. 02. 044
Ribes-Giner, G., Perello-Marín, M. R., & Dıaz, O. P. (2018). Co-creation in undergraduate engineering
programs: Effects of communication and student participation. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 34(1), 236–247.
Riva, E., Gracia, L., & Limb, R. (2022). Using co-creation to facilitate PhD supervisory relationships. Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 46(7), 913–930. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03098 77X. 2021. 20211 58
Rouse, M., Phillips, J., Mehaffey, R., McGowan, S., & Felten, P. (2017). Decoding and disclosure in stu-
dents-as-partners research: A case study of the political science literature review. International Jour-
nal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 53–66. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v1i1. 3061
Roy, J., Chittle, L., Ismail, E., & Kustra, E. (2023). Students as partners within a centre for teaching and
learning: A qualitative analysis of challenges and benefits. International Journal for Academic Devel-
opment, 28(4), 481–494. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13601 44X. 2021. 19649 70
Ruiz-Eugenio, L., Toledo del Cerro, A., Gómez-Cuevas, S., & Villarejo-Carballido, B. (2021). Qualitative
study on dialogic literary gatherings as co-creation intervention and its impact on psychological and
social well-being in women during the COVID-19 lockdown. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 602964.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpubh. 2021. 602964
Ruskin, J., & Bilous, R. H. (2020). A tripartite framework for extending university-student co-creation to
include workplace partners in the work-integrated learning context. Higher Education Research &
Development, 39(4), 806–820. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2019. 16935 19
Sanina, A., Kutergina, E., & Balashov, A. (2020). The Co-Creative approach to digital simulation games in
social science education. Computers & education, 149, 103813. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du.
2020. 103813
Scoles, J., Huxham, M., Sinclair, K., Lewis, C., Jung, J., & Dougall, E. (2021). The other side of a magic
mirror: Exploring collegiality in student and staff partnership work. Teaching in Higher Education,
26(5), 712–727. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13562 517. 2019. 16775 88
Seale, J., Gibson, S., Haynes, J., & Potter, A. (2015). Power and resistance: Reflections on the rhetoric and real-
ity of using participatory methods to promote student voice and engagement in higher education. Jour-
nal of further and Higher Education, 39(4), 534–552. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03098 77X. 2014. 938264
Seery, C., Andres, A., Moore-Cherry, N., & O’Sullivan, S. (2021). Students as partners in peer mentoring:
Expectations, experiences and emotions. Innovative Higher Education, 46(6), 663–681. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s10755- 021- 09556-8
Shephard, K., & Shephard, K. (2020). Empowering Students in Higher Education. Higher Education for
Sustainability: Seeking Intellectual Independence in Aotearoa New Zealand, 137-141. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ 978- 981- 15- 1940-6_ 10
Singh, J. K. N. (2019). Evidence and benefits of postgraduate international students-staff members partner-
ship in extra-curricular activities: A Malaysian perspective. Higher Education Research & Develop-
ment, 38(7), 1475–1488. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07294 360. 2018. 14365 27
Smith, S., Akhyani, K., Axson, D., Arnautu, A., & Stanimirova, I. (2021). The partnership co-creation pro-
cess: Conditions for success? International Journal for Students as Partners, 5(2), 48–66. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v5i2. 4772
Smørvik, K. K., & Vespestad, M. K. (2020). Bridging marketing and higher education: resource integration,
co-creation and student learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 30(2), 256–270. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08841 241. 2020. 17284 65
Snelling, C. A., Loveys, B. R., Karanicolas, S., Schofield, N., Carlson-Jones, W., Weissgerber, J., etal.
(2019). Partnership through co-creation: Lessons learnt at the University of Adelaide. International
Journal for Students as Partners, 3(2), 62–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v3i2. 3799
Sohr, E. R., Gupta, A., Johnson, B. J., & Quan, G. M. (2020). Examining the dynamics of decision mak-
ing when designing curriculum in partnership with students: How should we proceed? Physical
Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 020157. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1103/ PhysR evPhy sEduc Res.
16. 020157
St. John-Matthews, J., Robinson, L., Martin, F., Newton, P. M., & Grant, A. J. (2020). Crowdsourcing: A
novel tool to elicit the student voice in the curriculum design process for an undergraduate diagnostic
radiography degree programme. Radiography, 26, S54–S61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. radi. 2020. 04. 019
Staniškis, J. K. (2016). Sustainable university: Beyond the third mission. Environmental Research, Engi-
neering and Management, 72(2), 8–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5755/ j01. erem. 72.2. 16203
Stanway, B. R., Cao, Y., Cannell, T., & Gu, Y. (2019). Tensions and rewards: Behind the scenes in a cross-
cultural student-staff partnership. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(1), 30–48. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10283 15318 813199
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Higher Education
Steckley, M., Fortin, E., & Minic, A. (2022). Exploring representation (EDI) in Students as Partners (SaP)
initiatives: A case study of equity, diversity and inclusion in the Students as Partners Program (SaPP)
at Carleton University. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
13603 116. 2022. 21049 44
Sterenberg, G., O’Connor, K., Donnelly, A., & Drader, R. (2018). Research assistants’ experiences of co-
creating partnership learning communities for learning and teaching in higher education. Interna-
tional Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1), 97–111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v2i1. 3196
Steriopoulos, E., Goh, E., & Harkison, T. (2022). Practical teaching tips on designing authentic assessments
in Tourism, Hospitality and Events (THE) higher education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tour-
ism, 22(4), 425–433. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15313 220. 2022. 20961 81
Sutarso, Y., Halim, R. E., Balqiah, T. E., & Tjiptoherijanto, P. (2017). The role of co-creation activities, trust
and gender on higher education marketing performance. European Research Studies Journal, XX(3A,
825–845. https:// doi. org/ 10. 35808/ ersj/ 748
Tai, J. H. M., Dollinger, M., Ajjawi, R., de St, J., Jorre, T., Krattli, S., McCarthy, D., & Prezioso, D. (2023).
Designing assessment for inclusion: An exploration of diverse students’ assessment experiences.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 403–417. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02602 938.
2022. 20823 73
Tarı Kasnakoğlu, B., & Mercan, H. (2022). Co-creating positive outcomes in higher education: Are students
ready for co-creation? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 32(1), 73–88. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 08841 241. 2020. 18250 31
**Taylor, C. A., & Bovill, C. (2018). Towards an ecology of participation: Process philosophy and cocrea-
tion of higher education curricula. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 112–128. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14749 04117 704102
Towers, D., & Loynes, C. (2018). Finding new ways: Developing a co-constructed approach to excursions in
higher education. Journal of Experiential Education, 41(4), 369–381. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10538
25918 808329
Tschirhart, C., & Pratt-Adams, S. D. (2019). Closing the loop: An evaluation of student-led module feed-
back at one UK higher education institution. International Journal for Students as Partners, 3(2),
78–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15173/ ijsap. v3i2. 3554
Uskoković, V. (2018). Flipping the flipped: the co-creational classroom. Research and Practice in Technol-
ogy Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s41039- 018- 0077-9
Vikhnevich, S., Gao, Y., Jiang, L., Chen, X., & Li, C. (2022). Attitudes and intentions that made it work:
Students-faculty partnership in China. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and
Change, 8(2).
Wang, A. (2021). Models of student engagement in music education classroom in higher education. Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 12, 738207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 738207
White, M. (2020). Student partnership, trust and authority in universities. Educational Philosophy and The-
ory, 50(2), 163–173. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00131 857. 2016. 11534 51
Wilson, C., Broughan, C., & Daly, G. (2022). Case study: Decolonising the curriculum-An exemplification.
Social Policy and Society, 21(1), 142–150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1474 74642 10006 46
Wilson, S., Tan, S., Knox, M., Ong, A., Crawford, J., & Rudolph, J. (2020). Enabling cross-cultural student
voice during COVID-19: A collective autoethnography. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice, 17(5), 3. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53761/1. 17.5.3
Woolmer, C., Sneddon, P., Curry, G., Hill, B., Fehertavi, S., Longbone, C., & Wallace, K. (2016). Student
staff partnership to create an interdisciplinary science skills course in a research intensive university.
International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 16–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13601 44X.
2015. 11139 69
Wright, E., Smith, R., Vernon, M., Wall, R., & White, L. (2021). Inclusive, multi-partner co-creation for
the teaching of special educational needs and disabilities in higher education. Journal of University
Teaching and Learning Practice, 18(7), 25–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 53761/1. 18.7.3
*Zarandi, N., Soares, A. M., & Alves, H. (2022a). Strategies, benefits and barriers-a systematic literature
review of student co-creation in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–25.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08841 241. 2022. 21349 56
*Zarandi, N., Soares, A. M., & Alves, H. (2022b). Student roles and behaviors in higher education cocrea-
tion-a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(7), 1297–
1320. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IJEM- 08- 2021- 0317
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com