Introduction

Intergenerational coparenting, defined as joint caregiving by parents and grandparents, has become increasingly prevalent globally owing to factors such as increasing maternal employment, high costs of childcare services, parental migration, single parenthood, teenage pregnancy, and parental incarceration (Baker et al., 2010; Da, 2003; Goh, 2006; Harper & Ruicheva, 2010; Li & Liu, 2020; Sjöberg & Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, 2017; Xiao, 2016). Asian societies, such as China, have a long tradition of intergenerational care transfer, and grandparents are commonly involved in childrearing (Chen et al., 2011). As of 2014, 66.47% of Chinese grandparents were involved in caring for their grandchildren (China Research Center on Aging, 2014, as cited in Xia, 2020). In Western societies, which hold individualistic values, grandparents have not traditionally been involved in caring for grandchildren; however, this is gradually changing. In 2018, approximately 1.1 million grandparents in the United States aged ≥60 years had childrearing responsibilities for one or more coresidential grandchildren aged <18 years (Administration on Aging, 2021). In Europe, 47% of grandchildren reported that their grandparents were involved in their care (Žilinčíková & Kreidl, 2018). Despite this global trend of grandparents' increased involvement in childcare, studies on coparenting have generally focused on joint childcare by two spouses and overlooked the role of grandparents and intergenerational coparenting (Shorey & Ng, 2022). Therefore, this study attempted to construct an integrative framework of intergenerational coparenting based on a scoping review of existing global evidence guided by family systems theory and an intersectionality perspective.

Theoretical perspectives guiding the scoping review

Family systems theory suggests that the family should be regarded as a system consisting of interdependent subsystems, such as marital, parental, and sibling subsystems (Cox & Paley, 2003). Families have the ability to adapt to new circumstances and change as required for the system's sustainability (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2011; Cox & Paley, 2003). The need for adult children and older parents to adapt to new caregiving roles affects both generations individually as well as interactions between generations. In addition, the hierarchy and boundaries within the family system can influence parental authority and the process of intergenerational coparenting (Arnold et al., 2011). Within the subsystem of older parents and adult children, differences in roles as caregivers and attitudes toward childrearing may trigger changes in the intergenerational relationship. Intergenerational relationships may further influence the well-being of family members and the ability of the family system to cope with or adapt to challenges (Bai, 2018; Bai, Guo, & Fu, 2018; Bai, Liu, et al., 2018; Derlan et al., 2018).

Consistent with family systems theory, empirical evidence indicates that grandparental care can meet the instrumental and developmental needs of grandchildren (Pong & Chen, 2010; Schrijner & Smits, 2018), enable parents' participation in the labor market and pursuit of career advancement (Aassve et al., 2012), improve grandparents' health, well-being, and a sense of worth (Arpino et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2017), and strengthen family bonds and functioning (Chen & Lewis, 2015; Noriega et al., 2017; Xiao, 2016). However, grandparents who have negative childrearing experiences, such as those who are overburdened with caregiving responsibilities and experience frequent conflict with coparenting allies, are vulnerable to physical decline and poor psychological well-being (Goodman et al., 2008; Muller & Litwin, 2011; Xu et al., 2017). Strained coparenting relationships may lead to behavioral issues among children (Li & Liu, 2019) and parents' feelings of incompetence at performing their roles (Greenfield, 2011). Previous review studies have focused more on antecedents or impacts of intergenerational coparenting than on processes and dynamics. Investigations of intergenerational coparenting from comparative perspectives in a global context are lacking.

Intersectionality theory provides an additional lens for deepening the understanding of intergenerational coparenting. Intersectionality captures how individuals' multiple social identities, such as race, gender, class, are embedded within cultural and structural contexts that privilege or oppress some individuals over others (Collins, 2019; Crenshaw, 1991; Curtis et al., 2020; Dolbin-MacNab & Few-Demo, 2018; Lai & Bai, 2016). When applied to grandparenting, intersectionality theory explains how grandparents' race, gender, class, immigration, or ability may intersect to cultivate different sources of resilience and risk and interact with sociostructural systems of privilege and oppression to shape grandparents' experiences and well-being (Dolbin-MacNab & Few-Demo, 2018; Greenwood, 2008). For instance, an old, poor, unhealthy, immigrant Latina grandmother may find that she has to negotiate ageism, classism, racism, and sexism simultaneously. As Dolbin-MacNab and Few-Demo (2018) suggested, dominant discourses on reasons for older adults' involvement in grandparenting and their family context, such as parental employment, substance abuse, and death from terminal illness, may intersect with other social identities, such as race, class, and marital status, which may result in some grandparents' disempowerment.

Crenshaw (1991) identified three types of intersectionality: representational, structural, and political. Representational intersectionality focuses on how cultural constructions, through creating certain images of specific groups in mass media, shape our views toward these groups and influence the creation of related laws and policies, which may further lead to stereotypes and oppression (Crenshaw, 1991; Few-Demo, 2014). Structural intersectionality refers to the connections of systems and structures in society and how those systems influence individuals and groups (Few-Demo, 2014). Political intersectionality emphasizes the importance of examining variation within and across groups and investigates how a specific minority group is situated within two or more subordinated groups and how this minority group may experience discrimination and difficulties owing to conflicting political agendas related to their social identities (Dolbin-MacNab & Few-Demo, 2018).

To comprehensively understand the diversity in intergenerational coparenting, it is crucial to acknowledge that the experience of intergenerational coparenting is influenced by individual, familial, and sociocultural factors. For instance, intergenerational coparenting in Asian families is mostly driven by a strong sense of familism, whereas grandparents in Western families are more likely to participate in a coparenting arrangement to accommodate the specific needs of an individual family member or in response to parent's temporary role crises (Baker et al., 2010; Derlan et al., 2018; McHale et al., 2013; Moffatt et al., 2019; Xie & Xia, 2011). In countries where public childcare services are inadequate and daycare and domestic helper costs are high, grandparents are more likely to be viewed as optimal and trustworthy individuals to take on caregiving responsibilities (Aassve et al., 2012; Bordone et al., 2017; Goh, 2006). Previous studies have mainly focused on intergenerational coparenting in a single cultural or social context (Hoang & Kirby, 2020), which has limited the discussion of the interaction of multilevel factors shaping the experience of intergenerational coparenting. Based on these two theoretical perspectives, we argue that intergenerational coparenting should be understood as part of a multilevel system, embedded in the intersections among factors such as policy, culture, family structure, race, age, gender ideology, socioeconomic status, and immigration status.

Knowledge gaps and the present study

Previous studies have not utilized the available global evidence to construct an integrative framework for conceptualizing and examining intergenerational coparenting. As intergenerational coparenting has yet to be examined within broader family systems in a global context, the following questions remain unanswered: (a) What is the structure or distribution of power and authority in intergenerational joint care coalitions? (b) How is labor divided between parents and grandparents in joint childrearing? (c) What are the common coparenting challenges encountered by parents and grandparents, and how do they cope with those challenges? (d) How do parents and grandparents cooperate and reciprocate as coparents to safeguard the well-being and functioning of the whole family? (e) How do multilevel factors independently and jointly shape the experience of intergenerational coparenting?

To address these questions, this study adopted a scoping review approach, which is useful for determining the scope of extant research and current analytical dimensions for emergent and broad topics that have not been adequately conceptualized and analyzed (Munn et al., 2018; Pham et al., 2014). This study adopted family systems and intersectionality theories to (a) map key concepts, characteristics, and dynamics underpinning the multifaceted process of intergenerational coordination in childcare, and (b) synthesize the available global research evidence to develop an integrative framework that articulates the essence and complexities of intergenerational coparenting. This framework provides a strong conceptual and analytical basis for future research, assessment, and service development.

Methods

Search strategy

The study adopted a systematic and transparent literature search strategy to ensure the review's credibility and comprehensiveness (Peters et al., 2015). A review protocol was developed based on the PRISMA checklist (Moher et al., 2009) before the literature search was performed. Subsequently, the research team discussed and decided on search terms, databases, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. To ensure high quality and appropriate scope of the literature search, a pilot search was conducted using the selected databases. The search terms were revised after the pilot search, and the review protocol was finalized. The specific time span for this study (2000–2021) was selected for the following reasons. First, the year 2000 marks the inception of modern research into coparenting dynamics (McHale et al., 2004; McHale & Lindahl, 2011), making it an appropriate starting point. Second, in 2000, the United States Census introduced the question of whether coresident grandparents were caregivers of their grandchildren (Sadruddin et al., 2019). Third, the past two decades marked an industrial shift toward globalization, which resulted in more dual-income households and migrant families (i.e., where parents and children are physically separated in different countries or cities) in many countries, urging grandparents into the role of caregivers (Stevenson et al., 2007).

In November 2021, we conducted a systematic search of five comprehensive databases in the areas of social science and biomedicine: PsyInfo (via ProQuest), the Social Science Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts (via ProQuest), Social Service Abstracts (via ProQuest), and Medline (via EbscoHost). The following search term combinations were used: (co-parenting OR coparenting OR childrearing) AND (grandmother* OR grandfather* OR grandparent* OR three-generation OR multigenerational), (parent-grandparent OR grandparent-parent) AND ([co-parenting OR coparenting], grandparenting, grandfathering, and grandmothering). Peer-reviewed articles published between January 2000 and November 2021 were searched. In addition, because some relevant studies may be differently indexed in different electronic databases, a manual search was performed through reference harvesting and forward citation searching, which yielded three additional studies.

Screening eligibility and study selection

Figure 1 illustrates the study selection process using the PRISMA flow diagram. EndNote X9 was used to manage references and select studies. The initial search returned 5113 articles, and 1824 duplicates were removed. After screening the abstracts of the remaining 3289 citations, we excluded 2756 irrelevant studies and included a final sample of 533 studies for full-text assessment. Furthermore, we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to full-text screening. Empirical studies published in English were included if they investigated coparenting dynamics and interpersonal relationship between parents and grandparents jointly involved in childrearing. We excluded studies if they exclusively focused on the relationship between grandparents and their grandchild or did not clearly indicate the presence of parents as well as grandparents in childcare provision. After the exclusion of 491 studies, 42 were included in our review. The screening process was separately performed by two research assistants who cross-checked each other's selection results to ensure consistency and accuracy.

Data analysis

Data analysis involved three steps: data extraction, quality assessment, and data synthesis. First, relevant information was extracted from the included studies and entered into an extraction table (Appendix A), which contained (a) references; (b) sample characteristics, namely the target population, country or region, and sample size; (c) type of coparenting alliance; (d) methodology; (e) measurement; and (f) related findings. Second, the methodological quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT), which has been adopted to evaluate the quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies for systematic reviews (Hong et al., 2018). The MMAT was used to assess sample selection, appropriateness of measurements, and data analysis of quantitative studies and relevance, adequacy, and coherence of data of qualitative studies.

Second, prior to formal data analysis, 10 studies were selected and independently reviewed by all research team members. A meeting was held to discuss discrepancies and questions that emerged during the first two stages of data analysis, and a consensus was reached on the principles of data extraction and quality evaluation. All papers were subsequently divided into three groups, and each group of papers was independently analyzed by two reviewers. The interrater reliability was examined by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients, and a high degree of reliability was identified in all the three groups (0.938, 0.886, and 0.873).

Third, a thematic analysis was performed to synthesize the findings of all the studies (Pope et al., 2006). Each paper was repeatedly read by more than one reviewer, and the major concepts and key findings were highlighted and coded. Themes and subthemes were generated. Cross-case analysis was performed to compare the findings of several studies that examined similar themes or subthemes, and data synthesis was conducted by identifying differences and similarities between these findings. At the descriptive level, the prevalence of grandparents' involvement in intergenerational coparenting, grandparents' profile, and types of coparenting alliances were identified. Other findings were synthesized into several key domains.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

The 42 studies were conducted in 14 countries or regions, with the highest numbers in the United States (n = 17), China (n = 9), and the United Kingdom (n = 5), followed by Singapore, Japan, Vietnam, Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, Russia, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Australia. This scope represented diverse geographical locations and sociocultural contexts. The sampled studies captured diverse family contexts, including low-income (n = 2), dual-worker (n = 3), transnational migrant (n = 11) families, families with children with disabilities (n = 2), and families with children of incarcerated (n = 3), teenage (n = 4), and single (n = 1) parents. Study methodologies were mostly qualitative (n = 25), followed by quantitative (n = 11) and mixed-methods (n = 6). Multiple data collection approaches were used; the methodology details are presented in Appendix A.

Five domains of intergenerational coparenting

This study synthesized the interaction and process of intergenerational coparenting and categorized them in five partly related but individually distinct themes: power and authority, division of labor, conflict, coping and adaptation, and reciprocity. A summary of the themes, subthemes, and corresponding findings is provided in Appendix B.

Power and authority in intergenerational coparenting

Parent-as-manager alliance

Among the 18 studies that evaluated the childrearing power structure, the majority (n = 13) indicated a parent-as-manager structure, whereas the remaining studies demonstrated a collaborative or grandparent-led hierarchy. Parents who believe that the grandparenting style is often overly indulgent insist on their own dominance in childrearing (Conn et al., 2013; Goh & Kuczynski, 2010; Sivak, 2018). Correspondingly, grandparents who believe in parental obligation frequently occupy an assistant role in coparenting and adhere to the norms of “being there” and “non-interference” (Breheny et al., 2013; Chen & Lewis, 2015; Moffatt et al., 2019; Nagata et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2018). Such norms indicate that grandparents are concessive and tolerant, believe that parents make the best choices for children (Harman et al., 2021), leave space for parental autonomy (Moffatt et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018), facilitate parents' exercise of power (Mason et al., 2007; Xiao, 2016), and maintain harmonious family relationships while preserving their own emotional and physical space (Chiu & Ho, 2020; Yang et al., 2018). Media depictions of the ideal retirement as self-reliance with an enriching life of leisure outside of families and the nuclear family structure in pro-individualism societies, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, may lead to deficient legal support in recognizing grandparental help, further bolstering this power structure (Breheny et al., 2013; Sjöberg & Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, 2017; Thang et al., 2011). However, the parent-as-manager alliance may suffer from norms and exhibit inconsistency when grandparents are involved in intensive childcare owing to sociocultural contexts such as a lack of formal daycare services and traditional culture construction of grandparents as major caregiving figures (Leung & Fung, 2014; Sandel et al., 2006; Thang et al., 2011).

Grandparent-led coparenting and equal cooperation

Grandparents, as a stabilizing force in the family, sometimes voluntarily or involuntarily assume primary childcare responsibilities (Conn et al., 2013; Harper & Ruicheva, 2010). They often possess more resources or are more capable of providing childcare when parents are devoid of childrearing capacity owing to some family crisis. Furthermore, some coparenting alliances feature equal cooperation and participation by grandparents and parents (Conn et al., 2013; McHale et al., 2013). For instance, studies in the United States revealed that an egalitarian alliance can occur when grandparents and parents maintain close and affectionate relationships (McHale et al., 2013). Similarly, the traditional cultural value of filial piety and respect for older individuals, which is emphasized in Chinese immigrant families, creates such alliances (Conn et al., 2013).

Authority in the childrearing decision-making process

Parents in the parent-as-manager alliance usually have a dominant voice in childrearing decisions. Grandparents are easily marginalized in family discussions on child development owing to their perceived lack of knowledge in formal education and modern nurturing styles (Xiao, 2016). In grandparent-led coparenting alliances, an inconsistency can be observed between the power structure and authority in the childrearing decision-making process. Grandparents who provide primary care often do not have clear legal status, which limits their ability to make decisions (Hayslip et al., 2019). By contrast, under traditional hierarchical grandparenting styles in African and Asian families, grandparents must “teach” their adult children (Bhopal, 1998; Goh, 2013; Leung & Fung, 2014; Sandel et al., 2006). This phenomenon is particularly observed among adolescent parents whose parents insist on educating them regarding childrearing (Perez-Brena et al., 2021) and in ethnic minority or immigrant families where grandparents play a stabilizing role in the family unit in response to racism and labor market migration (Goodman & Silverstein, 2001). In a relatively extreme example, Indian paternal grandparents have the utmost say in childrearing decisions despite not necessarily providing considerable childcare support (Bhopal, 1998).

Power struggles over childrearing

The power structure of coparenting coalitions, including core coparental units, functional family groups, and “executive family subsystems” in charge of guidance, decision-making, and upbringing of children (Baker et al., 2010; Goh & Kuczynski, 2010; McHale et al., 2004), is not always fixed and stable but is fluid in everyday interactions (Xiao, 2016). Intergenerational power struggles often occur over childrearing. Caregivers who are dissatisfied with their marginal status or childrearing arrangement may strategically seek to obtain more power while avoiding undermining the coparenting alliance. These power struggles are particularly pronounced between young mothers and their mothers-in-law, as paternal grandmothers are more likely to perceive mothers as family outsiders who challenge their authority, particularly in Chinese households with a patrilineal culture (Sandel et al., 2006; Xiao, 2016). Conversely, young parents may adopt an ageist view of grandparents as caregivers who lack scientific and up-to-date childcare knowledge (Sivak, 2018; Xiao, 2016). Grandparents may refuse to obey the parental rule, criticize the parents in front of grandchildren (Goh & Kuczynski, 2010; Xiao, 2016), form alliances with grandchildren through everyday childcare (Xiao, 2016), or even direct promises of inter vivos gifts without acknowledging the parents (Tezcan, 2021). To address challenges encountered in their leading role within the coparenting alliance, parents may “soften” grandparents by organizing family trips and partially yielding in minor matters (Xiao, 2016), whereas some parents may consider retaking responsibility for childcare duties to “distance” the overinvolved grandparents (Conn et al., 2013; Sivak, 2018).

Division of labor

Division of labor between parents and grandparents

Grandparents may engage in multiple childcare tasks, ranging from recreational activities to providing intensive instrumental childcare support for parents. When grandparents assist with childcare chores, parents can be relieved of some childrearing responsibilities and focus on educating and disciplining the child and planning for the child's development (Goodman, 2007; Sandel et al., 2006). The division of labor in childcare between parents and grandparents is affected by the intersection among individual characteristics, family relationship and power structure, cultural context, and childcare policies (Goodman & Silverstein, 2006; Wyss & Nedelcu, 2020). For instance, grandparents who are younger (Goodman, 2007), have lower socioeconomic status (Goh, 2009), have more favorable health status (Chen & Lewis, 2015; Nagata et al., 2010), and are living near or with an adult child (Bhopal, 1998; Chen & Lewis, 2015) are more likely to be involved in caring for the grandchild. Family and societal factors, including parents' dual employment, grandchild's disability, a limited access to childcare facilities and services, and government support of grandparental assistance, such as income tax relief for unemployed caregiving grandparents, may intersect with individual characteristics to encourage grandparents' intensive engagement in childcare (Bordone et al., 2017; Thang et al., 2011; Xiao, 2016; Yang et al., 2018).

When parents are unable to care for their children owing to incarceration, substance or alcohol abuse, or being a single or teenage parent, some grandparents may undertake primary childcare responsibilities (Harper & Ruicheva, 2010; Sjöberg & Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, 2017). Although considered “rescuers” for families, older parents in these families face additional challenges. This is because they are typically unemployed and must perform a variety of caregiving duties for their children and grandchildren while ensuring the financial security of the family (Goodman & Silverstein, 2001; Harper & Ruicheva, 2010; Sandel et al., 2006).

Gendered division of labor

Grandmothers typically undertake more childcare duties than grandfathers, particularly household cleaning and emotional support tasks (Harper & Ruicheva, 2010; Xiao, 2016). Moreover, fathers are less likely than mothers to engage in coparenting coalitions. Even in dual-worker families, fathers tend to regard their role as the “breadwinner” rather than caregiver (Conn et al., 2013; Xiao & Loke, 2021) and may be excluded from coparenting if mothers doubt their childcare competence (Wang & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2021). Moreover, the gendered division of labor is subject to family contexts. For instance, ethnic minority groups in the United States are more likely to have grandmothers performing major caregiving roles owing to a history of women-initiated shared parenting (Goodman & Silverstein, 2006). Conversely, a family's migrant status may force grandparents to deviate from traditional gender roles and offer any type of assistance they can provide, as childcare needs are more important than gender roles (Chen & Lewis, 2015).

Division of labor between paternal and maternal grandparents

Studies conducted in Europe revealed that maternal grandparents were more involved in intergenerational coparenting as a crucial source of support for mothers (Barnett et al., 2010; Moffatt et al., 2019; Sjöberg & Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, 2017). Paternal grandparents appeared to be more willing to assist with childrearing in China and India, where patrilineal culture is stronger (Chen et al., 2000). Moreover, nearby residence of paternal grandparents (but not maternal grandparents) decreases mothers' childcare involvement (Chen et al., 2000), indicating the crucial role of paternal grandparents in intergenerational coparenting.

Conflict

Content and sources of conflict

Conflict, tension, and arguments are ordinary scenarios in coparenting literature. A tug of war between coparenting adults is often described at some length in the context of many childrearing problems, ranging from children's basic needs to their discipline and academic performance. Disagreements regarding division of labor owing to different role perceptions, contrasting childrearing methods, insufficient coordination regarding disciplinary measures, ineffective communication, and potential child manipulation are common conflicts (Goh, 2013; Goh & Kuczynski, 2010; Leung & Fung, 2014; Perez-Brena et al., 2021). Furthermore, sources of conflict are power imbalance and varied authority and responsibility attached to the different roles played by parents and grandparents.

Parenting and grandparenting entail different meanings, duties, and emphases, and parents and grandparents may view each other through cultural narratives molded by ageism, sexism, and other cultural-constructed ideas regarding family and responsibility. Grandparents, particularly grandmothers, are often depicted in ageist and sexist ways as favoring their authority as elders and parents-in-law but having little knowledge of modern childrearing methods. Parents, while gradually gaining childrearing authority, may continue to be oppressed by the idea of respecting the elders and be forced to carefully oppose grandparents' ways of childcare. These scenarios illustrate conflict arising from the intrusion of intergenerational disagreement and the blurring of boundaries between parents and grandparents due to confusion (Goodman, 2007) and overlapping of roles (Conn et al., 2013; Harper & Ruicheva, 2010) generated by the intersection of divergent cultural expectations and ideals of two generations.

Conflicting family relations and intergenerational interactions

The occurrence and severity of conflict are largely affected by interpersonal and intergenerational relationships and interactions. For instance, conflict was least frequently reported by mutually supportive alliances (McHale et al., 2013) and connected families (Goodman, 2007), followed by families led by parents and linked by children (Goodman, 2007). Parents' and grandparents' ability to consistently work as a team, provide reciprocal support, enjoy each other's development, and maintain strong emotional closeness appears to be the key factor influencing prevention and reduction of conflict (Goodman, 2007; Goodman & Silverstein, 2001; McHale et al., 2013). By contrast, conflict and complaints are more common when the power associated with childcare arrangements and decisions is grasped by only parents or slips from the control of all coparenting adults (Goodman, 2007). Moreover, cultural ideology and family contexts play a role; for instance, shared caregiving is culturally endorsed by African American households, particularly during family crises, whereas Swedish adolescent mothers insist on their maternal identity as “the primary mother” with grandparents who “teach” (Oberlander et al., 2007; Sjöberg & Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, 2017).

Coping and adaptation

Open communication and negotiation

Lack of communication is identified as a common concern and challenge for coparenting figures (Huang et al., 2021). Although open communication may be a straightforward approach to resolving conflict, it is ironically a difficult approach to practice (Goh, 2006; Goh & Kuczynski, 2010; Leung & Fung, 2014; Thang et al., 2011; Xiao, 2016). Open communication is often avoided between in-laws but accepted between older parents and their own children (Goh, 2006; Leung & Fung, 2014), as it is considered impolite for the younger generation to talk frankly with their parents-in-law (Goh & Kuczynski, 2010). Moreover, some grandparents hesitate to voice their concerns owing to their perception of in-laws being family outsiders (Thang et al., 2011). Given the difficulty in facilitating open communication, negotiation is commonly adopted. For instance, mothers may educate grandparents to follow modern childrearing methods through negotiation (Sivak, 2018). Negotiation can be mediated by intimate family relationships and is evident in grandparents' withdrawal of negotiation power to maintain emotional intimacy with other family members (Xiao, 2016).

Compromise and avoidance

Compared with communication and negotiation, submissive coping approaches are relatively prevalent. Compromise indicates that coparenting adults suppress their frustration to prevent conflict and sustain harmonious family relationships (Chen & Lewis, 2015; Sandel et al., 2006; Xie & Xia, 2011). This definition distinguishes compromise from negotiation, in which none of the coparenting adults concedes their childrearing ideas (Sivak, 2018). Although individuals may concede part of their power or authority, compromise is not an entirely submissive manner of coping. Sivak (2018) summarized two types of reactions that resemble a compromise: reformatting and redescription. Parents actively deal with disagreements or interference with a seemingly passive attitude to “reformat” grandparental involvement, thereby preventing over-interference or “redescribe” it to render it acceptable (Sivak, 2018). Other parents may seek support outside the family (Conn et al., 2013), avoid disciplining children in the presence of grandparents, or talk to grandparents in a joking manner (Goh, 2006). In these cases, although parents make compromises owing to grandparents' interference, they explore other strategies to embrace the differences. Grandparents' narratives revealed that their compromise usually adheres to the “being there without interfering” norm (Harman et al., 2021). By contrast, avoidance, which may originally evolve from attempts to contain conflict and a hope that the conflict will fade over time, often sharpens contradictions (Goh & Kuczynski, 2010).

Adapting to normative transitions and unexpected incidents

Despite daily childrearing problems, coparenting alliances develop capacity to cope with predictable family transitions and irregular critical events in the long run (Walsh, 2012). Normative transitions, such as a newborn's arrival or grandparental involvement in an immigrant family, prompt the whole family to reconsider its role distribution, thus forcing individuals to adapt to the changing environment and reconfigure their roles to shoulder childcare responsibilities (Chiu & Ho, 2020; Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2021; Xiao & Loke, 2021; Xie & Xia, 2011).

Furthermore, adaptation is a continual coping process. Yang et al. (2018) reported that grandparents made multiple adaptations for their grandchildren with disabilities. For instance, they adapted to offer practical, financial, and emotional support to their adult children and grandchildren and accommodate the children's needs to maintain family traditions (Yang et al., 2018). Moreover, they focused on maintaining physical and emotional health to prepare for providing long-term support. Grandparents' incremental efforts revealed how families adapted to and thrived on disruptive events (Yang et al., 2018).

Multiple underlying issues, such as immigrant status, visa and residence laws, and gender, produce variances among families in their adaptation process. For instance, non-European Union (EU) immigrant grandparents in Switzerland are subject to a troublesome visa application process and limited duration of stay requirements; consequently, they are unable to provide the same level of support for childcare as their EU counterparts (Wyss & Nedelcu, 2020). As assumed family caregivers, female caregivers (including mothers and grandmothers) in these dual-earner immigrant families frequently have to undertake employment compromises to fulfill their childrearing responsibilities (Wyss & Nedelcu, 2020).

Reciprocity in grandparent–parent joint childrearing

Intergenerational cooperation in childrearing

Intergenerational coparenting alliances are inherently composed of reciprocal relationships, in which parents and grandparents support each other to achieve parenting goals (Goodman, 2007; McHale et al., 2013). Familism is considered fundamental to ensuring a collaborative parent–grandparent relationship in Asian and Western contexts (Low & Goh, 2015; Thang et al., 2011; Zeiders et al., 2015). The discourse of positive coparenting experiences often describes childrearing as an ultimate family goal, which justifies the constant investment, sacrifices, and compromises required (Chen & Lewis, 2015; Low & Goh, 2015). In particular, sacrificing for the family is excessively emphasized in Chinese families, as ensuring continuation of the family line and benefiting descendants are regarded as vital in Chinese culture (Conn et al., 2013; Da, 2003; Low & Goh, 2015; Xie & Xia, 2011).

Support exchange

The bilateral exchange of support is embodied in the forms of perceived and expected rewards as a component of later life care. Grandparents can be symbolically rewarded with close family connections (Xie & Xia, 2011) and grandchildren's appreciation, love, and respect (Chiu & Ho, 2020; Da, 2003). For transnational families, coparenting provides a valuable opportunity for reunification (Chiu & Ho, 2020; Xie & Xia, 2011). Regarding the concept of “care circulation” (Chiu & Ho, 2020), grandparents' participation in childcare may hint at a “paying forward” strategy with the expectation of returned care from adult children (Low & Goh, 2015; Sandel et al., 2006) and grandchildren (Tezcan, 2021).

As a form of repayment, most parents feel obligated to provide instrumental support, such as healthcare and financial support, through remittances to ensure the well-being of caregiving grandparents in later life, especially if they are in a disadvantaged economic situation and have limited access to formal care and services (Chiu & Ho, 2020; Da, 2003; Xiao, 2016). For instance, the lack of recognitive justice for immigrant caregiving grandparents and their inferior socioeconomic situation in receiving societies contribute to higher commitment from parents in providing elder care in return (Chiu & Ho, 2020; Da, 2003).

Benefits for family well-being

Multidimensional planning and preparation for later life is crucial for older adults and their families (Liu et al., 2022). According to the role enhancement theory, positive and collaborative coparenting experiences provide grandparents with pride, satisfaction, and a sense of family belonging (Moffatt et al., 2019; Thang et al., 2011). Moreover, broader sociocultural contexts, such as emphasis on familism and supportive welfare policy, intersect to benefit grandparents' well-being (Goodman & Silverstein, 2006; Low & Goh, 2015; Zeiders et al., 2015).

By contrast, negative coparenting experiences, such as frequent intergenerational conflict, role ambiguity, and emotional isolation, are associated with higher levels of distress (Leung & Fung, 2014) and mental health problems (Goodman, 2007). When grandparents are suddenly thrust into substantial caregiving roles, they may find that difficulties of childcare outweigh the reward, which increases their risk of experiencing significant stress and health-related costs (Baker et al., 2010; Goodman & Silverstein, 2002). This is typically owing to the multiple intersecting obstacles they may confront, including family crises, a lack of institutional support in welfare or legal custody, and economic deprivation (Baker et al., 2010; Goodman & Silverstein, 2002).

From the perspective of parents, grandparental contributions to childrearing improve their financial stability and security (Xie & Xia, 2011) and facilitate social status maintenance (Goh, 2006), as the parents can then devote more time to professional development (Wyss & Nedelcu, 2020). Moreover, grandparents' guidance on childrearing decreases parental stress (Goh, 2006; Sandel et al., 2006), whereas grandparents' over-involvement may induce frustration and anxiety for parents, particularly adolescents mothers under dominant individualist social discourse (Bhopal, 1998; Goh & Kuczynski, 2010; Sjöberg & Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, 2017). High-quality intergenerational coparenting reduces the frequency of children's problematic behaviors (Baker et al., 2010) and increases their social competence (Li & Liu, 2019).

Discussion

With reference to family systems theory and an intersectionality perspective, this scoping review clearly mapped the key concepts, characteristics, and dynamics underpinning the multifaceted process of intergenerational coordination in childcare. By synthesizing the available global research evidence and referencing to the model of coparenting components proposed by Feinberg (2003), we developed an integrative framework that articulates the essence and complexities of intergenerational coparenting.

Five key domains of intergenerational coparenting framework

Our intergenerational coparenting framework (Figure 2) comprises five key domains: power and authority, division of labor, conflict, coping and adaptation, and reciprocity. The framework outlines the common aspects of coparenting that can be observed in any coparenting form and distinguishes the features of parent-grandparent coparenting, including complicated interpersonal and intergenerational relationships and diverse coparenting arrangements.

The five domains of coparenting are interrelated; hence, a difficulty in one domain may be solved by or contribute to difficulties in other domains. For instance, changes in the family system may lead to a power struggle within the family, which may in turn create conflict regarding established strategies and rules (Conn et al., 2013; Goh, 2013). In addition, struggles related to power and authority and the new power structure may further affect the division of labor in coparenting (Moffatt et al., 2019; Nagata et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2018). An imbalance in the division of labor may trigger conflict, which is characterized by a coparenting individual's right to assign privileges and responsibilities concerning childcare (Conn et al., 2013; Goh, 2013; Goodman, 2007; Harper & Ruicheva, 2010). In the face of conflict, coparenting adults devise coping measures to deal with difficulties and adapt to changes to achieve a better fit within the family's present circumstances (Goh, 2006; Leung & Fung, 2014; Sivak, 2018; Xiao, 2016). Intergenerational coparenting is a reciprocal process, in which coparenting adults coordinate to preserve the function and well-being of the family, thus leading to modified power and authority structures.

Incorporating intersectionality into the intergenerational coparenting framework

Intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1991; Few-Demo, 2014) provides a valuable framework for improving the understanding of grandfamilies and the family system in general (Dolbin-MacNab & Few-Demo, 2018; Few-Demo & Allen, 2020). Previous studies have examined how the intersection of grandparents' social identities intersect results in inequality and differential experiences of grandparenting (Dolbin-MacNab & Few-Demo, 2018; Greenwood, 2008). Based on global research and Crenshaw's (1991) intersectionality framework, this systematic review further extended the intersectional analysis to intergenerational and family levels, contributing to deepening the understanding of how the characteristics of multiple stakeholders, including that of grandparents, parents, and grandchildren, and multilevel factors, including individual, familial, and sociocultural, independently and jointly shape the diverse experiences of intergenerational coparenting.

Representational intersectionality

Intergenerational coparenting can be subject to family- and individual-level cultural constructions that may result in power struggles over childrearing, gendered division of labor, and conflicting family relations. At the family level, as the primacy of traditional nuclear family structure is emphasized in the Western culture, nuclear family discourse excludes grandparents from intensive engagement in childrearing issues, and intergenerational coparenting is often linked to adult children's inability to care for children and a lack of socioeconomic resources. In families with cultural traditions of multigenerational households, power struggles between parents and grandparents are not uncommon owing to rising emphasis on scientific parenting.

At the individual level, intergenerational coparenting is shaped by gender, age, socioeconomic status, and race. The division of labor in intergenerational coparenting is highly gendered, as mothers and grandmothers typically undertake more childcare duties than their counterparts (Barnett et al., 2010; Harper & Ruicheva, 2010; Xiao, 2016). Grandparents can be viewed as too old and having limited knowledge of modern nurturing styles, which devalue their caregiving roles. Caregivers with greater socioeconomic resources typically have a stronger voice in the family (Dolbin-MacNab et al., 2021; Sjöberg & Bertilsdotter-Rosqvist, 2017). African American, Latino, and Asian families with grandparental involvement are often portrayed as primary caregivers owing to cultural expectation as well as family adversities or immigration.

Structural and political intersectionality

Intergenerational coparenting to some extent reflects the oppression of grandfamilies within social systems, such as family, immigration, and international laws. Intergenerational coparenting is regarded as a pragmatic solution to the lack of daycare facilities and formal, affordable childcare services. For transnational families, the intersection of legal considerations, such as migration, eldercare, and welfare, with family members' citizenships and migration statuses affects the feasibility, duration, and reciprocity of intergenerational coparenting (Chiu & Ho, 2020; Wyss & Nedelcu, 2020). Some families experience significant changes owing to the intersection of race, gender, socioeconomic status, and social systems. For instance, although gender role conflict has been reported among male caregivers (e.g., Bai, 2018; Bai, Guo, & Fu, 2018; Bai, Liu, et al., 2018), a family's migrant status may force grandparents to deviate from traditional gender roles and offer any type of assistance that they can provide, as childcare needs are considered more important than gender roles (Chen & Lewis, 2015).

Notably, some grandparents cannot benefit from advocacy and legal efforts despite the important role they play in childcare. Baker et al. (2008) reported that several grandparents raising grandchildren in the United States do not have legal custody of their grandchildren, leaving them to obtain resources and financial support outside the welfare system.

Acknowledging the crucial roles of individual, familial, and sociocultural characteristics and their intersection in shaping the diverse experiences of intergenerational coparenting, this intergenerational coparenting framework contains several multilevel factors in its outer circle (Figure 2). The circle illustrates the intersectionality and influence circulation across individual, familial, and sociocultural characteristics. Thus, this framework advances the understanding of grandparental involvement and parent-grandparent interaction within family systems and can facilitate welfare development and policymaking for improving individual well-being and interpersonal relationships within families that practice intergenerational coparenting.

Implications

Implications for future research

This scoping review identified how future studies on intergenerational joint care practices can benefit from using this integrative framework. Our intergenerational coparenting framework can assist researchers in exploring the mechanisms through which various individual and contextual factors affect coparenting. For instance, the framework embraces intersectionality as an analytical lens, emphasizing the diversity of coparenting arrangements and experiences, which vary by age, gender, health statuses of coparents and children, and family and sociocultural contexts. Moreover, the framework may direct researchers to probe parent-grandparent coparenting within family systems, facilitating a deeper understanding of the difficulties encountered by individuals and how personal experiences, family circumstances, and sociocultural contexts complicate the coparenting process.

This review has some limitations, which largely reflect the limitations of the literature reviewed and should be addressed in future studies. First, the research on intergenerational coparenting has mainly used qualitative or cross-sectional quantitative methods; evidence from longitudinal studies that tracked the changing dynamics of intergenerational coparenting, family functioning, and well-being is limited. Second, we aimed to analyze the influences of various sociocultural and policy factors through cross-national comparison of coparenting practices. However, we were unable to perform a direct comparison due to methodological differences among studies and lack of relevant information. Therefore, further studies employing a longitudinal design and utilizing comparative perspectives are required.

Implications for practice

Although the studies included in this scoping review revealed geographical variations, we believe that our intergenerational coparenting framework is generalizable and can be appropriately adapted to people with intersecting identities. The proposed framework can assist family social workers, family life educators, family therapists, family gerontologists, and other family professionals in understanding the processes of and challenges encountered in intergenerational coparenting as well as major contributing factors. Our framework disassembles a complex phenomenon, which involves intricate interpersonal relationships and overlapping individual duties, into several dimensions, enabling family life educators and therapists to recognize family process dynamics in terms of distinctive parent-grandparent interaction patterns and enabling other professionals to utilize them to guide clinical and interventional practices with a better understanding of cultural and institutional effects.

We believe that our intergenerational coparenting framework can help effectively address problems in coparenting relationships from a perspective that engages both generations. An effective coparenting intervention should include multiple components that aim to reach a consensus between generations over power, authority, and division of labor to resolve conflict, facilitate coping and adaptation, and build a reciprocal relationship. An effective coparenting intervention may not necessarily solve problems in only one domain but may also be helpful in reducing risk factors in other domains. For instance, intergenerational conflict may result from power struggles within the family and negatively affect the relationship between the two generations. To achieve a reciprocal relationship, interventions could aim to improve communication in the process of allocating caregiving tasks and resolve conflict and tensions in the intergenerational interactions. Open communication and effective negotiation can be crucial to efficient collaboration and reducing intergenerational contradictions (Xiao, 2016).

Moreover, family professionals would benefit from incorporating the voices of parents and grandparents with intersecting characteristics into their intervention and advocacy efforts (Dolbin-MacNab & Few-Demo, 2018). For instance, in families with teenage mothers, multifamily group interventions involving mothers and grandmothers exerted a positive effect on younger mothers' self-efficacy and parent–child bonds and reduced intergenerational family conflict (McDonald et al., 2009). Fostering a supportive relationship between African American low-income mothers and grandmothers and proposing an appropriate division of labor in caregiving enabled young mothers to practice their parenting skills and gradually increase their parenting competence (Oberlander et al., 2007).

Furthermore, family professionals should not dismiss older parents' continuing filial expectations, especially in more familistic cultural settings. It is crucial to consider the various cultural interpretations of intergenerational coparenting when proposing the notion of a reciprocal relationship between generations. When designing support services and programs for older individuals, the role of older adults in childrearing should be considered; simultaneously, their children and grandchildren should be encouraged to be engaged in eldercare preparation and provision (Bai et al., 2020). In addition, this framework indicates major dimensions in which practitioners can intervene for grandparents who shoulder a heavy caregiving burden but have had negative coparenting experiences.

Conclusion

By synthesizing the available global research evidence under the guidance of family systems theory and the intersectionality theory, this study developed an integrative framework of intergenerational coparenting comprising five distinct and interrelated domains: power and authority, division of labor, conflict, coping and adaptation, and reciprocity. This framework provides a lens through which scholars can examine the processes and experiences of interaction between parents and grandparents in childrearing and how intersecting characteristics, such as race, gender ideology, socioeconomic status, immigration status, family structure, culture, and policy, affect the experiences and practices of joint childcare. This newly developed integrative framework is a promising tool that can guide future studies on intergenerational coparenting and inform the development of interventions for effectively addressing pragmatic needs for joint childcare, preventing conflict in intergenerational and coparenting relationships, devising useful coping and adaptation strategies for obtaining desirable coparenting outcomes, and nurturing cooperation and reciprocity in the process of coparenting to safeguard the well-being and functioning of the family system.

Appendix A

Characteristics of studies included for review

Appendix B

Summary of themes and subthemes of included studies