Four models of the coworking concept to facilitate remote higher education Open Access

COVID-19 accelerated a trend that started before the pandemic: remote work (Charalampous et al., 2019; Felstead and Henseke, 2017), including remote scholarship in higher education (Ali, 2020; Perrotta, 2021; Pregowska et al., 2021). By the turn of the 21^st century, the widespread availability of personal computers, the Internet and mobile technology had helped make remote or independent (freelance) office-based work a reality (Charalampous et al., 2019). As the first quotation above suggests, higher education has not participated in that trend. COVID-19’s contribution has been to make examples of remote work a largely global, albeit partly temporary, norm (e.g., Galanti et al., 2021). This has also been true for remote teaching, learning and collaborative research in higher education (Ali, 2020; Pregowska et al., 2021), which we call “remote scholarship.” Given the growth of such remote scholarship and the parallel growth of remote work outside of academia, it seems reasonable to conclude that remote scholarship is here to stay.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted both costs and benefits of remote work, (e.g., Galanti et al., 2021), including remote scholarship (e.g., El Refae et al., 2021; Pregowska et al., 2021), many of which were evident before the pandemic (e.g., Allen et al., 2015). One way to frame these costs and benefits at a general level is as a trade-off between (a) the benefits of face-to-face social relationships and of dedicated, high-quality workplace facilities when working from a host organization (whether that be a company or a university) rather than remotely, and (b) the benefits of geographic and institutional autonomy and the associated freedom and convenience that one gets when working from home. As the foresight expressed in the second quotation above suggests, coworking has come to be recognized as one viable solution to this trade-off, providing the infrastructure and social connectedness of a traditional office while preserving the geographic and institutional independence and convenience of working from home (Howell, 2022; Neuberg, 2005).

Given the demonstrated success of coworking in the business domain, one might expect similar promise for remote and freelance work in higher education, as the fundamental trade-offs between autonomy and community apply equally to scholars. Yet, despite the coworking model’s business sector success and recognized potential in higher education (Bouncken, 2018; Kyrö and Artto, 2015; Orel and Bennis, 2020; Tagliaro et al., 2022), its adoption in academic settings remains limited (Orel and Bennis, 2020). This paper employs a systematic conceptual approach, to examine why this disparity exists and how purpose-designed coworking models might address the unique barriers and requirements of higher education. Our conceptual analysis draws upon several theoretical domains, providing a foundation for developing viable scholarly coworking models.

Recent studies highlight significant challenges in remote education and research collaboration, including reduced social interaction, limited access to specialized facilities and decreased interdisciplinary exchange (Perrotta, 2021; Pregowska et al., 2021), which traditional academic spaces and virtual collaboration tools have struggled to address (El Refae et al., 2021; Ali, 2020). While universities offer shared workspaces like departmental offices and research centers, these traditional models often reinforce rather than transcend institutional boundaries. Coworking spaces, emphasizing institutional neutrality and flexible resource-sharing (Orel and Bennis, 2020), present opportunities to address these limitations. This paper contributes to higher education research by examining how coworking principles, proven successful in the business sector, can be adapted to academic settings. We propose conceptually grounded models of scholarly coworking that address documented challenges in remote scholarship, providing clear pathways for empirical validation and practical implementation.

Global economic and technological shifts have produced three types of outsourced workspaces: serviced offices providing flexible workspace services, telecentres targeting remote workers and coworking spaces (Kojo and Nenonen, 2017). While coworking facilities share characteristics with both, they distinctly emphasize social relationships, community building and knowledge sharing among users from unaffiliated organizations (Kojo and Nenonen, 2015; Pyöriä, 2011). The latter ecosystem of postsecondary learning, teaching, research and development occurs in universities, colleges and other degree-granting institutions. While our paper emphasizes large research universities, both terms – university and higher-education institution – include standalone colleges and professional schools unless specifically differentiated. Within this context, we use scholar-related terms inclusively to encompass all participants in higher education, regardless of hierarchy or specialization. Scholarship is chosen over narrower terms like education or research to reflect our broad consideration of coworking’s benefits across academic contexts. Scholarly coworking facilities should serve students, teachers and researchers at all career stages and disciplines, similar to how business-sector coworking facilities transcend hierarchical and specialized boundaries (Orel and Bennis, 2021). While specialized scholarly coworking spaces may emerge as the field matures, our current focus remains on spaces that accommodate diverse scholarly pursuits without hierarchical, departmental or disciplinary restrictions.

Although they share the core characteristics described above, coworking spaces are diverse. They vary in specialization, social support and layout openness (Petrulaitiene et al., 2018) and have evolved and diversified into distinct subtypes over time. Orel and Bennis (2021) describe the taxonomy of four types of coworking facilities.

Individual-purposed coworking targets location-independent professionals seeking autonomy while providing the community and support common to traditional offices. This model addresses challenges faced by remote and freelance workers not colocated with peers. Group-purposed coworking serves teams while fostering community and collaboration among all members, including unaffiliated individuals, through shared activities, community management and networking resources. Creation-purposed coworking caters to makers, hackers, artists and other creators by providing specialized equipment like tools, hardware, 3D printers or even commercial kitchens. They rely on members’ shared contribution and shared use to make the resources affordable, encourage collaboration and skill-sharing and offer training and classes to help members effectively use the shared equipment (Kraus et al., 2022). Finally, Startup-purposed coworking spaces include incubators and accelerators aimed at helping new ventures succeed. They provide mentorship, investment or access investors, partnerships and other resources to support business success.

This taxonomy serves three purposes: it acknowledges diverse models of coworking, it highlights the similarity between all four types of coworking to existing campus-based collaborative workspaces, and it helps constrain our own conception of coworking, which focuses on individual-purposed coworking. While creation-purposed and start-up-purposed coworking spaces may play a crucial role in the future of remote scholarship, this paper focuses on individual-purposed coworking, since it seeks to bridge the needs for autonomy, community and collaboration and high-quality workplace facilities that make remote work both challenging and rewarding.

The evolving landscape of higher education necessitates a brief consideration of its aims and functions and an overview of emerging remote education models. Higher education serves multiple purposes: knowledge creation and dissemination, critical thinking development, innovation fostering and professional preparation (Alemu, 2018). It also builds scholarly communities, promotes personal growth and contributes to societal advancement (Astin, 1997). These aims are achieved through teaching, research and community engagement, all potentially impacted by the shift toward remote scholarship. The higher-education ecosystem comprises diverse stakeholders: students seeking knowledge and credentials, teachers facilitating learning, researchers advancing knowledge and administrators balancing institutional goals and resources. While our discussion touches on all these groups, we primarily focus on addressing the first three – students, teachers and researchers – all conceived of as scholars, and how their remote work challenges can be addressed through coworking spaces. We consider the fourth stakeholder, institutions of higher education themselves and the administrators who represent them, primarily regarding their role in promoting or putting up barriers to scholarly coworking.

As remote higher education evolves, three prominent models have emerged in the educational landscape. First, Distance Learning Programs represent fully online degree-granting programs offered by established universities, exemplified by the Open University in the UK, serving over 200,000 students [¹] and Southern New Hampshire University in the USA with over 170,000 online students [²]. Second, Massive Open Online Courses operate through specialized online education platforms like Coursera, edX and Udacity, offering courses in collaboration with renowned educators and institutions (Shah, 2020), providing certificates of completion in a flexible, often self-paced environment. Third, Hybrid and Fully Remote Learning in Traditional Institutions, which gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic (Hodges et al., 2020), involves traditional universities offering courses in hybrid or fully online formats, adapting existing curricula and teaching methods to remote platforms while maintaining strong connections to physical campus resources.

Remote work research has identified consistent patterns of costs and benefits across professional domains, including higher education. Studies highlight challenges such as loneliness, social isolation and inadequate infrastructure (Galanti et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021), leading to decreased satisfaction and productivity (Charalampous et al., 2019), while also noting benefits like improved work-life balance and autonomy (Felstead and Henseke, 2017; Gajendran and Harrison, 2007). In academic contexts, remote scholars face similar challenges regarding isolation and facility access (Arkorful and Abaidoo, 2015; El Refae et al., 2021; Simonson et al., 2019), with reduced physical proximity affecting collaboration effectiveness (Katz, 1994; Kraut et al., 2002; Ponds et al., 2007). However, remote scholarship offers unique opportunities through reduced institutional barriers and improved geographic flexibility (Arkorful and Abaidoo, 2015; El Refae et al., 2021).

Remote scholarship presents distinct considerations beyond general remote work challenges, particularly regarding specialized workspace needs and teaching technology requirements (Hodges et al., 2020; Rapanta et al., 2020). Success depends on high-quality equipment (Bower et al., 2015), effective teacher training and productive student norms (Hodges et al., 2020). Two factors make individual-purposed coworking especially relevant to academia: the emphasis on open collaboration makes coworking less threatening than in competitive business sectors (Bouncken and Reuschl, 2018), and research shows that proximity based on shared interests rather than physical location can enhance scientific collaboration quality (Kraut et al., 2002; Ponds et al., 2007). As remote collaboration resources improve, social proximity based on complementary expertise may become more valuable than geographical convenience.

Remote work in academia presents both opportunities and challenges, with coworking spaces emerging as a potential solution. Drawing from business sector experience, these spaces demonstrate benefits in networking, collaboration and productivity (Spinuzzi, 2012; Bilandzic and Foth, 2013; Gerdenitsch et al., 2016; Orel, 2019). While this business sector evidence provides relevant insights, academic workspace studies (Barrett et al., 2015; Cabral, 2021; Fai et al., 2024; Migliore et al., 2024) highlight distinct institutional requirements including tenure systems and discipline-specific infrastructure needs. Remote scholarship involves unequaled considerations such as student–teacher mentorship (Rapanta et al., 2020), yet scholarly coworking spaces could facilitate global collaboration and reduce institutional biases (Katz, 1994; Kraut et al., 2002). Although universities maintain shared facilities like libraries and specialized laboratories (Bouncken, 2018; Kyrö and Artto, 2015; Barrett et al., 2015), coworking spaces distinctly emphasize geographic and institutional autonomy, promoting interinstitutional collaboration beyond enrolled members (Bouncken, 2018; Orel and Bennis, 2020).

Despite their potential, several barriers limit coworking adoption in higher education (Orel and Bennis, 2020). Universities often perceive their existing facilities as sufficient, underestimating coworking’s unique value proposition (Spinuzzi, 2012). They may view autonomous coworking spaces as potential competitors threatening campus resource value (Labaree, 2017). Quality gaps in specialized equipment and institutional identity present challenges (Pittinsky and Carolan, 2008), though similar gaps haven’t deterred business sector adoption (Spreitzer et al., 2015). Additional barriers include lack of empirical evidence on benefits (Bouncken and Reuschl, 2018), institutional inertia in adapting to change (Christensen and Eyring, 2011), funding constraints (Johnstone and Marcucci, 2010) and concerns about protecting intellectual property in open collaborative environments (Spinuzzi, 2012). While university-based workspaces offer some coworking-aligned benefits (Orel and Bennis, 2020; Cabral and Winden, 2016; Yacoub and Haefliger, 2024), they typically lack the geographic and institutional openness that makes coworking effective for remote work (Orel and Bennis, 2021). Understanding these barriers is vital for developing scholarly coworking models that can address them while capitalizing on coworking’s potential benefits for remote scholarship.

The development of our four scholarly coworking models followed a systematic conceptual approach grounded in both theoretical analysis and practical observation. Our approach aligns with established frameworks for conceptual analysis in organizational research (see Jaakkola, 2020) and builds upon previous theoretical modeling of educational space innovation (e.g., Bouncken and Reuschl, 2018; Spinuzzi et al., 2019). Our systematic approach builds around four phases:

1. A narrative review across three domains: studies on business sector coworking spaces (e.g., Waters-Lynch and Potts, 2017), research on remote work and education (Perrotta, 2021; El Refae et al., 2021) and analyses of collaborative academic workspaces (Orel and Bennis, 2020; Cabral, 2021);

2. synthesis of key success factors and operational characteristics that could transfer to scholarly contexts, particularly focusing on elements that facilitate institutional and geographic autonomy while maintaining academic rigor;

3. evaluation of these characteristics against higher education’s unique constraints and requirements, including specialized infrastructure needs, institutional policies and resource allocation challenges; and

4. iterative model development through comparison with analogous examples in both academic and business sectors, such as the European Union’s Erasmus program for interinstitutional collaboration and WeWork’s enterprise solutions for distributed workspaces.

This conceptual development process revealed several critical theoretical dimensions that warrant deeper examination prior to implementing the four models: the role of spatial and organizational structures in facilitating knowledge exchange, the impact of community dynamics on scholarly collaboration and the evolution of institutional frameworks in higher education.

The development of our scholarly coworking models is anchored in three established theoretical domains. First, collaboration theory provides critical insights into how spatial and organizational structures influence knowledge sharing and innovation. The Theory of Collaborative Advantage (Vangen and Huxham, 2013) suggests that successful collaboration requires both structural enablers and social processes, while proximity theory (Boschma and Frenken, 2018) demonstrates how geographic, organizational and cognitive distances affect collaborative outcomes. These theoretical frameworks are particularly relevant to understanding how coworking spaces can facilitate meaningful academic collaboration across institutional boundaries. Recent empirical studies of scientific collaboration networks (Wagner et al., 2019) and virtual research teams (Gilson et al., 2015) further support the importance of creating physical and virtual spaces that reduce collaboration barriers while maintaining institutional autonomy.

Our second theoretical consideration concerns the role of community in workspaces, drawing from theories on the social infrastructure of collaborative spaces (Garrett et al., 2017) and on organizational space design (Taylor and Spicer, 2007). These frameworks help explain how spatial arrangements and governance structures influence community formation and knowledge exchange in shared workspaces. Research on successful community workspaces has identified key theoretical principles, including the importance of balanced autonomy and interaction (Brown, 2017), the role of spatial design in fostering serendipitous encounters (Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2019) and the impact of governance structures on community development (Waters-Lynch and Duff, 2021). These principles directly inform our models’ approaches to creating scholarly communities that balance individual needs with collaborative opportunities.

The third theoretical pillar draws from higher education theory, particularly focusing on how institutional structures and practices affect learning and research outcomes. Contemporary theories of communities of practice (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2020) and networked learning (e.g., Goodyear et al., 2004) emphasize the importance of creating flexible, connected learning environments that support diverse forms of scholarly interaction. This theoretical base is complemented by research on the changing nature of academic work (Tight, 2019) and the evolution of university spatial design (Lau et al., 2014), highlighting the need for new academic spaces that can accommodate increasingly fluid and collaborative forms of scholarship. These theoretical foundations collectively support our models’ emphasis on creating spaces that maintain academic rigor while fostering new scholarly collaboration and community building forms.

With their geographic and organizational divisions across departments and campuses, university ecosystems can limit interdisciplinary collaboration (Brewer, 1999; Ponds et al., 2007; Siedlok and Hibbert, 2014). While campus-based shared workspaces could theoretically function like coworking spaces by breaking down these institutional barriers – like corporate sector examples (Nagy and Lindsay, 2018) – such home-campus workspaces remain rare and are typically department-specific (Orel and Bennis, 2020). This rarity stems from challenges in finding neutral, accessible locations across departments and identity and ownership issues that arise when facilities are department-based. However, universities with suitable neutral real estate and commitment to cross-departmental collaboration could implement a limited version of coworking, though these would only address internal rather than interuniversity barriers.

One solution to the inability of the previous model to breakdown institutional and geographic barriers as the individual-purposed coworking model has done in the business domain would be to provide campus-based coworking spaces that have reciprocal agreements with other universities and that are specifically designed (1) to host visiting students, teachers and researchers and (2) to facility their interaction with one another and with members of the host institution. Given the cost to universities of providing such resources to outside scholars, why would they want to? Existing business-sector coworking spaces have already suggested one answer: they could charge a membership fee, provide income and use existing resources more efficiently. The term resources refers to more than just real estate. Attendance could be increased in classes and lecture halls, and underutilized Internet bandwidth or research equipment could be monetized or more efficiently used. More than income, however, such facilities can add prestige and scholarly value to the universities that host them, attracting high-quality and diverse external scholars and offering those visitors a unique and valuable experience.

Challenges may arise due to asymmetries in resources and reputation among universities. However, shared governing bodies can promote reciprocal exchanges, and existing interinstitutional relationships in higher education could facilitate collaboration (Bracht et al., 2006; Galvin et al., 2023) [³]. Similar reciprocal-use agreements already exist in the business sector [⁴].

Off-campus coworking spaces purpose-built for scholars can address issues that drove the success of the coworking model, such as loneliness, the desire for community, knowledge sharing and access to quality workspace. We propose two subtypes: near-campus and remote coworking.

Near-campus coworking spaces on the periphery of existing universities provide collaborative benefits to scholars who might otherwise work alone. They promote interdisciplinary and interinstitutional collaboration, being unaffiliated with any specific university or department. Such facilities already exist (Orel and Bennis, 2020), with evidence of their value to scholars (Migliore et al., 2021; Vanichvatana, 2019). Future versions could include more scholarly-focused amenities, though their proximity to universities still limits full geographic and institutional autonomy.

Remote coworking spaces, established in areas with limited university resources, align more closely with the coworking concept. They cater to geographically specialized scholars and local professionals, fostering interinstitutional collaboration in remote locations. These spaces can provide valuable local knowledge, crucial for fieldwork success and virtual communication facilities to connect scholars at home institutions. While not yet existing for remote scholars, similar spaces are common in the business sector (Orel, 2019). Both models supplement geographic and institutional autonomy, addressing limitations of campus-based models.

While the previous models represent potential near-term implementations, the campus as a service (CaaS) model presents a more ambitious, long-term vision for scholarly coworking. This concept envisions a fully functional university campus designed for remote-working scholars, independent of institutional affiliation. However, several substantial barriers must be acknowledged: the model requires significant capital investment, complex governance structures and the development of new accreditation frameworks.

The theoretical potential of CaaS facilities includes hosting visiting faculty while maintaining their home institution connections, supporting international semester programs and providing local infrastructure for distance learning. However, implementation would require addressing multiple challenges: establishing quality assurance mechanisms acceptable to partner institutions, developing sustainable funding models, creating effective credit-transfer systems and building sophisticated technological infrastructure to support simultaneous local and remote participation.

Given these substantial requirements, a graduated implementation approach appears more feasible than immediate full-scale deployment. Initial steps might include establishing limited-scope academic hubs integrating select CaaS features into existing institutional frameworks. For instance, organizations currently providing campus-based credit-granting semesters abroad for universities demonstrate potential interim approaches, maintaining quality through established institutional partnerships while experimenting with more flexible delivery models [⁵] [⁶]. The CaaS model thus represents an aspirational framework for the future of remote scholarship rather than an immediately viable solution. Its development would likely require incremental progress through hybrid implementations, careful evaluation of pilot programs and substantial interinstitutional cooperation. While ambitious in scope, examining this model’s theoretical foundations helps identify opportunities and challenges in expanding scholarly coworking beyond traditional institutional boundaries.

The four proposed models of scholarly coworking facilities present a spectrum of options for fostering collaboration, sharing resources and breaking down institutional barriers in academia. Table 1 illustrates that each model has its distinctive characteristics, advantages and challenges. Below we summarize key features of each model, including barriers and opportunities.

Examining implementation feasibility reveals a spectrum of challenges across the proposed models, with resource requirements and institutional constraints increasing progressively in complexity. The Home-Campus Coworking model presents the most immediately viable option, as demonstrated by spaces like the University of Michigan’s Innovate Blue, where engineering students collaborate with business faculty on entrepreneurial projects in repurposed neutral territories. This foundational approach primarily demands organizational rather than infrastructural changes, though it still faces notable challenges including departmental territorialism and resource allocation conflicts. Implementation success across all models requires attention to four critical dimensions: physical infrastructure (specialized academic equipment and technology), human capital (community managers and technical support), governance mechanisms (access protocols and conflict resolution procedures) and financial resources (both initial investment and operational funding). Evidence from successful business sector transitions suggests that incremental implementation, supported by clear metrics and regular stakeholder feedback, proves more sustainable than rapid, comprehensive changes. These considerations inform the varying approaches required for each model, from internal reorganization to full-scale independent academic infrastructure development.

This model extends beyond single institutions through formal reciprocal agreements, similar to existing academic exchange programs like the Big Ten Academic Alliance’s Traveling Scholar Program. A practical example is the European Union’s Erasmus program, which could be adapted to support dedicated coworking spaces at participating universities. Successful implementation demands establishing standardized access protocols across institutions, developing resource-sharing agreements and creating unified booking and management systems. The model requires consistent quality standards across locations while building mechanisms for cross-institutional programming and events. While this model faces governance and resource equity challenges, it offers significant opportunities for expanding scholarly networks and optimizing resource utilization across institutions.

This model creates independent scholarly spaces, drawing inspiration from successful business coworking providers like WeWork but tailored for academic needs. An exemplar is the Cambridge Innovation Center (CIC), which, while not exclusively academic, demonstrates how purpose-built spaces can serve scholarly communities. Implementation necessitates designing spaces that support both individual research and collaborative projects, with specialized academic infrastructure including high-speed research networks and virtual classrooms. The model requires developing membership models that accommodate academic budgets and schedules, while creating programming that builds scholarly community without compromising institutional independence. Essential to its success is establishing partnerships with nearby academic institutions while maintaining autonomy. This model addresses the need for neutral territory while providing specialized academic infrastructure, though it requires significant initial investment and careful market analysis.

Unlike the inter-campus model, which focuses on reciprocal agreements between existing institutions, the CaaS model creates independent campus-like environments that simultaneously serve remote scholars from multiple institutions. Drawing parallels from successful study abroad providers – such as CIEE, mentioned in the previous section – this model provides comprehensive academic infrastructure without institutional affiliation. Implementation requires developing full-service academic facilities, including libraries, laboratories and teaching spaces, alongside systems for multiple institutions to grant credit for work completed in these spaces. The model demands establishing quality assurance mechanisms acceptable to partner institutions and building technology infrastructure to support simultaneous local and remote participation. Success depends on developing flexible service packages that institutions can customize for their needs. While this model requires the most significant investment and institutional coordination, it offers the potential for transforming remote scholarship by providing complete academic infrastructure independent of traditional institutional boundaries.

The successful implementation of scholarly coworking models depends on understanding and addressing diverse stakeholder needs within the academic ecosystem. Students engaged in remote learning benefit through enhanced peer interaction and professional network development (Perrotta, 2021; El Refae et al., 2021), while faculty members gain opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and improved work-life balance (Waters-Lynch and Potts, 2017), leading to increased research productivity and informal knowledge exchange (Kosmynin, 2022). Administrators serve as crucial facilitators while benefiting from improved resource utilization and institutional reach (Orel and Bennis, 2020), and professional staff contribute through expanded service delivery models and cross-institutional networks (Cabral, 2021). Research indicates that successful academic coworking initiatives must address these varied stakeholder needs while fostering meaningful interactions between groups (see Durante and Turvani, 2018).

Implementation success also hinges on addressing three critical institutional challenges. First, universities face certain financial constraints, as academic budgets typically lack flexibility for large-scale space investments without clear revenue streams, unlike commercial coworking ventures that can adjust membership fees based on market conditions. Second, scholarly coworking must navigate intellectual property considerations, particularly when hosting researchers from multiple institutions working on collaborative projects that may lead to patentable innovations. Third, accreditation requirements present distinctive challenges, as regulatory bodies may require specific governance structures and quality assurance mechanisms for recognizing interinstitutional scholarly spaces as legitimate academic environments (see Christensen and Eyring, 2011; Johnstone and Marcucci, 2010).

We believe these four proposed models of scholarly coworking facilities are viable. They are distinct from the existing examples of either (1) campus-based shared, collaborative workspaces (many of which nonetheless use the coworking label) or (2) business-sector coworking facilities (which are not purpose-built for scholarship). Each model offers unique benefits and addresses specific needs within the academic community. We believe these models have far-reaching implications, potentially revolutionizing teaching, learning, research and collaboration. They can make education more accessible and flexible, aligning with modern scholars’ needs and impacting facilities management. We believe they will enrich academic experience for remote and independent scholars and complement existing universities’ needs and potential offerings, in much the same way that coworking facilities have revolutionized the workplace landscape for remote and freelance workers in the business sector. Challenges and questions remain regarding how these models can be effectively implemented in practice and whether alternative scholarly models might prove more viable. The remainder of the conclusion will consider limitations of our conceptual analysis and implications for future research.

It is vital to emphasize that this is a conceptual paper and that the proposed coworking models are in their nascent stages, developed through theoretical reasoning rather than empirical validation. While our models draw upon multiple streams of evidence – including research on remote work dynamics, documented success factors of business coworking spaces, existing collaborative academic workspaces and emerging trends in remote education – they have not been empirically evaluated through stakeholder research or derived from an existing ecology of scholarly coworking spaces. This limitation reflects the current reality where individual-purposed coworking spaces targeting higher education are largely nonexistent, providing little direct empirical evidence on which to draw. Consequently, eventual implementations may differ significantly from what is proposed here, and rigorous empirical research is needed to establish the actual costs and benefits for various stakeholders, including students, faculty, researchers and administrators. Areas particularly requiring investigation include stakeholder needs and interactions, practical implementation challenges and the impact on collaboration and learning outcomes across different institutional contexts. We nonetheless believe that the systematic theoretical foundation underlying these models, combined with substantial evidence from business coworking and remote work research, provides a robust conceptual framework warranting serious consideration of these models’ potential impact on remote higher education.

We propose a structured research agenda across three phases to advance the scholarly coworking concept from theoretical models to practical implementation. Phase One should focus on foundational empirical research through mixed-method studies with stakeholders across institutions implementing collaborative environments, such as the University of Michigan’s Innovate Blue or CIC. Phase Two would followed with small-scale pilot projects testing specific model elements, where individual universities could implement Home-Campus Coworking spaces or geographically proximate institutions could pilot Inter-Campus arrangements, employing rigorous assessment frameworks to measure collaboration metrics, resource utilization and cost-effectiveness. Phase Three, implementation, would establish purpose-built scholarly coworking spaces near research-intensive universities, enabling natural experiments comparing traditional, remote and coworking-based scholarly activities. Critical research considerations across all phases should examine governance structures, technology infrastructure and spatial design influences on interdisciplinary interaction. Studies must also evaluate economic sustainability and track learning outcomes, research productivity and intellectual property management practices in these shared environments, ultimately developing evidence-based best practices for scholarly coworking implementation.