Innovation through Co-Creation in Women’s Boxing: A Situated Reflection on Boundary Objects

Authors

  • Nina Costa Research Institute for Design, Media and Culture (ID+), Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal; Centre for Mechanical Technology and Automation (TEMA), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Campus Universitário de Santiago, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2680-2752
  • Carlos Cardoso Research Institute for Design, Media and Culture (ID+), Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal; Centre for Mechanical Technology and Automation (TEMA), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Campus Universitário de Santiago, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; LASI—Intelligent Systems Associate Laboratory, Guimarães, 4800-058, Portugal
  • Ricardo de Sousa Centre for Mechanical Technology and Automation (TEMA), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Campus Universitário de Santiago, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; LASI—Intelligent Systems Associate Laboratory, Guimarães, 4800-058, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5848-6424

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2026.1840

Keywords:

Innovation through co-creation, Boundary objects, Women’s boxing, Head impact exposure, Practitioner–researcher positionality

Abstract

Women’s participation in boxing has expanded rapidly, yet health management practices related to repetitive head impacts remain largely shaped by male-centred evidence, uncertain long-term consequences and formal clinical thresholds, creating persistent gaps around head impact exposure, where symptoms are diffuse, cumulative and often normalised in training cultures. This article presents a situated practitioner–researcher reflection on an exploratory initiative in women’s boxing, by examining how biomechanical data and embodied experience are integrated through practice-based research. Instrumented mouthguard data were curated into visual reports and discussed with athletes as potential resources for health awareness and prevention. Three anonymised episodes are examined, including: differences in exposure patterns between athletes; the repurposing of the reports for tactical preparation; and the preference for impact location visualisations and comparative information. The reflections suggest that the reports functioned as boundary objects by bringing biomechanical measurements into dialogue with the athletes’ embodied and tactical knowledge. However, they did not produce a change in daily practice. Athletes often prioritised immediate performance benefits over future health risks, while coach engagement with the data was uneven. The study contributes to an implicit everyday co-creation process and identifies both the innovation potential and the practical limits of prevention data communication in a pro-risk sport culture.

References

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2018). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Anderson, N., Robinson, D. G., Verhagen, E., Fagher, K., Edouard, P., Rojas-Valverde, D., et al. (2023). Under-representation of women is alive and well in sport and exercise medicine: What it looks like and what we can do about it. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 9, e001606.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001606

Breen, L. J. (2007). The researcher “in the middle”: Negotiating the insider/outsider dichotomy. Australian Community Psychologist, 19(1), 163–174.

Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider–outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105

Gupte, R., Brooks, W., Vukas, R., Pierce, J., & Harris, J. (2019). Sex differences in traumatic brain injury: What we know and what we should know. Journal of Neurotrauma, 36(22), 3063–3093. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2018.6171

Johnson, M. P., Ballie, J., Thorup, T., & Brooks, E. (2017). Living on the edge: Design artefacts as boundary objects. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S219–S235. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352771

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.

Merone, L., Tsey, K., Russell, D., & Nagle, C. (2022). Sex inequalities in medical research: A systematic scoping review of the literature. Women’s Health Reports, 3(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2021.0083

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

Suchman, L. (2002). Located accountabilities in technology production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 91–105.

Trischler, J., Dietrich, T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2019). Co-design: From expert- to user-driven ideas in public service design. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1595–1619.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619810

von Busch, O., & Palmås, K. (2023). The corruption of co-design: Political and social conflicts in participatory design thinking. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003281443

Published

2026-09-16

How to Cite

Costa, N., Cardoso, C., & de Sousa, R. (2026). Innovation through Co-Creation in Women’s Boxing: A Situated Reflection on Boundary Objects. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 10(2), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2026.1840

Issue

Section

Part 1: Power and Participation

Categories