ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Educ.
Sec. Leadership in Education
This article is part of the Research TopicStrengthening Equity in and through Research Collaborations in EducationView all 7 articles
Examining Equity in (Education) Collaborations: A Conceptual Framework
Provisionally accepted- University of Delaware, Newark, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Collaborative research approaches such as co-design, co-creation, and co-production are increasingly promoted as strategies for advancing equity in education by strengthening relationships between researchers, practitioners, and communities. While equity is widely referenced as a guiding principle in these approaches, little consensus exists regarding how equity is defined, enacted, or evaluated within collaborative work. As a result, well-intentioned initiatives may reproduce existing power imbalances rather than disrupt them. This scoping review examines how equity is conceptualized and operationalized across collaborative research initiatives in education and allied fields and proposes a unifying framework to guide equity-centered practice. Following established scoping review methodology, we conducted a systematic search across major academic databases, yielding 7,123 records, which were reduced to 295 open-access articles after deduplication, screening, and full-text review. Automated and manual screening processes were used to identify studies involving substantive collaborative approaches and explicit stakeholder engagement. Using a mixed-methods analytic strategy, we combined computational text analysis with qualitative thematic synthesis to examine how equity was defined, pursued, and assessed across collaborative projects. Equity-related data were extracted at three analytic levels: goals, processes, and outcomes. Findings revealed that explicit definitions of equity were rare; only 58 studies offered definitional clarity. However, recurring themes emerged from the literature, including shared decision-making, tailored support, justice and fairness, participatory processes, representation, culturally responsive practice, and attention to historical and structural inequities. Equity was most frequently articulated through practice rather than formal definition, appearing implicitly within goals and processes. Three dominant process dimensions were identified: participatory (who is involved and how), relational (how trust and power are negotiated), and distributional (how resources, time, and authority are allocated). Equity-oriented outcomes included improved access, community capacity-building, shifts in institutional practice, and enhanced legitimacy of interventions. Drawing on these findings, we propose the Equity-Centered Collaboration Framework, which situates equity across three interdependent domains: goals, processes, and outcomes. The framework offers conceptual clarity and practical guidance for designing, evaluating, and strengthening equity-focused collaboration. By making equity explicit and observable, this framework aims to support more accountable, effective, and just collaborative research practice in education and beyond.
Keywords: co-creation, co-design, collaboration, Co-production, Scoping review
Received: 01 Aug 2025; Accepted: 04 Dec 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Shewchuk and Vilceus. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Samantha Shewchuk
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.