Balancing principles, power, and pragmatism: reflections on co-production in establishing national research priorities for women’s sport and physical activity
Abstract
Interest in co-production within sport, exercise, and health sciences has grown in recent years. The use of this approach, however, is not without challenges. In this article, we share reflections on a co-produced project that sought to establish research priorities for women in physical activity, sport, and exercise on the island of Ireland. More specifically, we analyzed reflections from 17 public contributors—known as the Research Collective—and an interdisciplinary research team of 10 academics who collaborated to develop a survey, distributed nationally, to establish the research priorities. Our reflections highlighted persistent tensions between our ability to deliver our intended co-production approach while operating within structural constraints, including limited funding, institutional bureaucracy, and a short funding timeframe. We also identified challenges with relationship building and diversity, such as sustaining engagement beyond the project timeframe and ensuring representation of marginalized sub-groups. For the research team, these tensions and the need to compromise our approach carried an emotional weight that both shaped and was shaped by the (re)negotiation of power with the Research Collective. To support the advancement of co-production practice, we conclude by offering recommendations for researchers based on our learnings from this project.
Related
- A closing window: Canada needs to deliver on promises on health equity and principled pragmatism
- At the Jabbok Ford: Transdisciplinary Reflections on Psychosomatic Dissociations
- Thirty years of percutaneous epicardial access: reflections on the evolution of ventricular tachycardia substrate mapping and ablation
- Establishing serial homology between the carpals and tarsals
- Cancer Neuroscience: Establishing a home in Neuro-Oncology
BibTeX
@article{cowley2026balancing,
title = {{Balancing principles, power, and pragmatism: reflections on co-production in establishing national research priorities for women’s sport and physical activity}},
author = {Emma S Cowley and Denise Martin and Jennifer Murphy and Aoife Lane and Eimear Kelly and Maria Faulkner and Maria O’Kane and Angela Carlin and Mary Margaret Meade and Elizabeth Deery and Patricia C Jackman},
journal = {Health Promotion International},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1093/heapro/daag159},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daag159},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Balancing principles, power, and pragmatism: reflections on co-production in establishing national research priorities for women’s sport and physical activity
AU - Emma S Cowley
AU - Denise Martin
AU - Jennifer Murphy
AU - Aoife Lane
AU - Eimear Kelly
AU - Maria Faulkner
AU - Maria O’Kane
AU - Angela Carlin
AU - Mary Margaret Meade
AU - Elizabeth Deery
AU - Patricia C Jackman
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/04
JO - Health Promotion International
DO - 10.1093/heapro/daag159
UR - https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daag159
AB - Interest in co-production within sport, exercise, and health sciences has grown in recent years. The use of this approach, however, is not without challenges. In this article, we share reflections on a co-produced project that sought to establish research priorities for women in physical activity, sport, and exercise on the island of Ireland. More specifically, we analyzed reflections from 17 public contributors—known as the Research Collective—and an interdisciplinary research team of 10 academics who collaborated to develop a survey, distributed nationally, to establish the research priorities. Our reflections highlighted persistent tensions between our ability to deliver our intended co-production approach while operating within structural constraints, including limited funding, institutional bureaucracy, and a short funding timeframe. We also identified challenges with relationship building and diversity, such as sustaining engagement beyond the project timeframe and ensuring representation of marginalized sub-groups. For the research team, these tensions and the need to compromise our approach carried an emotional weight that both shaped and was shaped by the (re)negotiation of power with the Research Collective. To support the advancement of co-production practice, we conclude by offering recommendations for researchers based on our learnings from this project.
SN - 0957-4824
SN - 1460-2245
ER -