The basic principle of co-creation is the process of creating new policy and new services with people, rather than for people. Ergo, co-creation must involve both “co” (sharing leadership) and “creative” (not only improving on the same efforts but also initiating new ventures). This type of innovation in higher education, through participation and involvement of the professional field, is not evident but can produce impressive results. Co-creative processes are always unique; they depend on the participating parties and their motivations. In a co-creation process, it is paramount to connect the creativity or ensure that the creativity is connected on the basis of sharing ideas. This will foster continuous development during the co-creation process (Gouillart & Hallett, 2015). Co-creation extends beyond collaboration, in the sense that the contributions of users and other stakeholders to the process are not limited to providing input: they are also actively participating in the creative process.

Definition of co-creation according to Bryan R. Rill and Matti M. Hämäläinen (Rill & Hämäläinen, 2018):

Within the framework of this report, co-creation with the professional field can involve various levels and pertain to all the core tasks of higher education:

This report features examples of all three levels. Most of the examples are linked to (2) and (3), because in many higher education establishments, (1) is already common practice and fostering the generic quality of education.

Exploring existing practices with the participating higher education establishments has produced several examples of real co-creation in the strict sense of the word. At the same time, it has led to the insight that additional forms of far-reaching collaboration exist, which do not quite meet the definition, yet are sufficiently valuable to include in this analysis because they create true added value or because they provide a firm basis for implementing a co-creation process.

Other forms of collaboration with the professional field are not covered in this report. Such forms involve practices that have evolved into standard procedures on account of the professional orientation of programmes or on account of the connection between education and actual practice, e.g., within the framework of applied research. Examples include professional field committees and advisory boards; work placements; the provision of authentic cases; involving representatives of the professional field as guest lecturers; the organisation of company visits; and the participation of the professional field in quality assurance processes.