The COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented level of disruption in education. One of the consequences of this disruption was that it made parents a key part of the educational delivery of public education. This research introduces the concept of parental co-production in the delivery of public higher education. We use a mixed-methods design to analyse data from around the crisis period of the COVID-19 pandemic, combining digital ethnography with two research surveys. The results provide a vivid portrait of the contentious deliberations surrounding parental co-production and includes the willingness of parents to co-produce public higher education, the reasons underpinning their decision to co-produce, the specific actions taken to co-produce, and their intentions to co-produce in the future. Our results suggest that parents can become important stakeholders in strengthening the relationship between industry and academia, and in improving the relevance of university degrees. Based on these findings, we provide a conceptual delineation of the potential differences between parental co-production in public schools and parental coproduction in public higher education, and outline suggestions for future research on the topic.
AlfordJ (1998) A public management road less travelled: clients as co-producers of public services. Australian Journal of Public Administration57(4): 128–137.
2.
AnsellCSørensenETorfingJ, et al. (2024) Robust Governance in Turbulent Times. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AristovnikAKeržičDRavšeljD, et al. (2020) Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: a global perspective. Sustainability12(20): 8438.
4.
BæckUK (2010) We are the professionals’: a study of teachers’ views on parental involvement in school. British Journal of Sociology of Education31(3): 323–335.
5.
BagirovaAPSandlerDGKlyuevAK (2025) Parental involvement in higher education: trend or post-pandemic syndrome?Ensaio Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação33(127): e0255058.
6.
BaiXZhouJ-JLeeCK, et al. (2024) Personal competence or environmental characteristics? Factors influencing happiness among ageing adults in Hong Kong around the period of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Gerontology43(9): 1204–1213.
7.
BatemanA (2016) Conversation Analysis and Early Childhood Education: The Co-Production of Knowledge and Relationships. 1st edition. London: Routledge.
8.
BentzenTØTorfingJ (2023) COVID-19-induced governance transformation: how external shocks may spur cross-organizational collaboration and trust-based management. Public Administration101(4): 1291–1308.
9.
BovairdT (2007) Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review67(5): 846–860.
10.
BrandDRollandM (2018) Case study—partners for possibility: co-production of education. In: BrandsenTVerschuereBSteenT (eds) Co-Production and Co-Creation. New York: Routledge, 174–176.
11.
BrandsenTHoninghM (2016) Distinguishing different types of coproduction: a conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review76(3): 427–435.
12.
BrandsenTHoninghM (2018) Definitions of Co-Production and Co-Creation. In: BrandsenTVerschuereBTruiS (eds) Co-Production and Co-Creation. New York: Routledge, 23–31.
13.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
BrooksRCookJWoodmanD (2025) Paradoxical parenting practices and Australian higher education. Sociology59(4): 644–662.
16.
BrudneyJLEnglandRE (1983) Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review43(1): 59.
17.
CaplanMAPurserG (2019) Qualitative inquiry using social media: a field-tested example. Qualitative Social Work18(3): 417–435.
18.
CarminatiMCavenagoDMarianiL (2023) Co-production before, during, and after the first COVID-19 lockdown: the case of developmental services for youth with disabilities. International Review of Administrative Sciences89(3): 864–882.
19.
ChambersJMWybornCRyanME, et al. (2021) Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability4(11): 983–996.
Cook-SatherA (2020) Student voice across contexts: fostering student agency in today’s schools. Theory Into Practice59(2): 182–191.
22.
CreswellJW (2022) A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
23.
DanielSJ (2020) Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects49(1): 91–96.
24.
DavisGOstromE (1991) A public economy approach to education: choice and Co-Production. International Political Science Review12(4): 313–335.
25.
FeofanovaOAShimutinaEN (2015) Public administration of education: results and prospects (In Russian). Public education 8(1451). 8 (1451). Россия, Москва: Общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Научно-исследовательский институт школьных технологий»: 14–19.
26.
FerlieEAshburnerLFitzgeraldL (1996) The New Public Management in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
FledderusJBrandsenTHoninghME (2015) User co-production of public service delivery: an uncertainty approach. Public Policy and Administration30(2): 145–164.
28.
GebauerHJohnsonMEnquistB (2010) Value co-creation as a determinant of success in public transport services: a study of the Swiss federal railway operator (SBB). Managing Service Quality: An International Journal20(6): 511–530.
29.
GottfriedMA (2008) College crowd-in: how private donations positively affect alumni giving. International Journal of Educational Advancement8(2): 51–70.
30.
GregoireBTragerLBlumJ (2021) Coproduction in medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: critical components of successful curricular reform. International Journal for Quality in Health Care33(Supplement_2): ii65–ii70.
HoninghMBondaroukEBrandsenT (2020) Co-production in primary schools: a systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences86(2): 222–239.
33.
InouyeKLeeSOldacYI (2023) A systematic review of student agency in international higher education. Higher Education86(4): 891.
34.
JiCJiangJZhangY (2024) Political trust and government performance in the time of COVID-19. World Development176: 106499.
35.
LoefflerEBovairdT (2020) Assessing the impact of co-production on pathways to outcomes in public services: the case of policing and criminal justice. International Public Management Journal23(2): 205–223.
36.
LumivaloJTuunanenTSaloM (2024) Value co-destruction: a conceptual review and future research agenda. Journal of Service Research27(2): 159–176.
37.
MarkusHRKitayamaS (2003) Models of agency: sociocultural diversity in the construction of action. In: Murphy-BermanVBermanJJ (eds) Cross-Cultural Differences in Perspectives on the Self. Volume 49 of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 18–74.
38.
McCullochA (2009) The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the student–university relationship. In: Studies in Higher Education. Routledge. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1080/03075070802562857.
39.
McGannMWellsTBlomkampE (2021) Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving. Public Management Review23(2): 297–316.
40.
MeerJRosenHS (2009) Altruism and the child cycle of alumni donations. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy1(1): 258–286.
41.
MeerJRosenHS (2010) Family bonding with universities. Research in Higher Education51(7): 641–658.
42.
MurthyD (2008) Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology42(5): 837–855.
43.
NabatchiTSancinoASiciliaM (2017) Varieties of participation in public services: the who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review77(5): 766–776.
44.
OlumekorMStojićAKehlerT, et al. (2022) The impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life and happiness of care home residents in Croatia: a cross-sectional study. Behavioral Sciences12(11): 463.
45.
OlumekorMKhanMSOppioliM, et al. (2024a) Policy-making for Indigenous entrepreneurship: towards an inclusive approach. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne d'Études du Developpement1–28.
46.
OlumekorMMangaiMSMadumoOS, et al. (2024b) Influences on e-governance in Africa: a study of economic, political, and infrastructural dynamics. Public Administration, Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/padm.13013.
47.
OregABabisD (2023) Digital ethnography in third sector research. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations34(1): 12–19.
48.
OsborneSP (2018) From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation?Public Management Review20(2): 225–231.
49.
OsborneSPRadnorZStrokoschK (2016) Co-Production and the Co-Creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?Public Management Review18(5): 639–653.
50.
OsborneSPNasiGPowellM (2021) Beyond co-production: value creation and public services. Public Administration99(4): 641–657.
51.
OstromE (1972) Metropolitan reform: propositions derived from two traditions. Social Science Quarterly53(3): 474–493.
52.
OstromE (1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development24(6): 1073–1087.
53.
O’ConnorSZhangMTroutKK, et al. (2021) Co-production in nursing and midwifery education: a systematic review of the literature. Nurse Education Today102: 104900.
54.
PalumboR (2016) Contextualizing co-production of health care: a systematic literature review. In: Lars TummersPSTYvonneBrunetto (ed), International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol. 29, no. 1, 72–90.
55.
PalumboRMannaR (2018) What if things go wrong in co-producing health services? Exploring the implementation problems of health care co-production. Policy and Society37(3): 368–385.
56.
PestoffV (2012) Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: some concepts and evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations23(4): 1102–1118.
57.
PokhrelSChhetriR (2021) A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future, Vol. 8, no. 1, 133–141.
58.
RadnorZOsborneSPKinderT, et al. (2014) Operationalizing Co-Production in public services delivery: the contribution of service blueprinting. Public Management Review16(3): 402–423.
59.
RasselGLelandSMohrZ, et al. (2020) Research Methods for Public Administrators. 7th edition. New York: Routledge.
60.
RubalcabaL (2022) Understanding innovation in education: a service Co-Production perspective. Economies10(5): 96.
61.
RyanGWBernardHR (2003) Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods15(1): 85–109.
62.
ScognamiglioFSancinoACalóF, et al. (2023) The public sector and co-creation in turbulent times: a systematic literature review on robust governance in the COVID-19 emergency. Public Administration101(1): 53–70.
63.
ShenYChengYYuJ (2023) From recovery resilience to transformative resilience: how digital platforms reshape public service provision during and post COVID-19. Public Management Review25(4): 710–733.
64.
SteenTBrandsenT (2020) Coproduction during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: will it last?Public Administration Review80(5): 851–855.
65.
UsterA (2024) Lessons from a black swan: professionals in local co-production prior to and during Covid-19. International Journal of Public Sector Management37(5): 692–711.
66.
VamstadJ (2012) Co-production and service quality: the case of cooperative childcare in Sweden. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations23(4): 1173–1188.
67.
VarisP (2015) Digital ethnography. In: GeorgakopoulouASpiliotiT (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication. 1st edition. London: Routledge.
68.
VerschuereBBrandsenTPestoffV (2012) Co-production: the state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations23(4): 1083–1101.
69.
VoorbergWHBekkersVJJMTummersLG (2015) A systematic review of Co-Creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review17(9): 1333–1357.
70.
WernerKWoessmannL (2023) The legacy of Covid-19 in education. Economic Policy38(115): 609–668.
71.
WoodmanDMaireQCookJ (2024) Who is receiving financial transfers from family during young adulthood in Australia?Journal of Sociology60(2): 399–418.
72.
ZaloomC (2019) Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
