Innovation through Co-Creation in Women’s Boxing: A Situated Reflection on Boundary Objects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2026.1840Keywords:
Innovation through co-creation, Boundary objects, Women’s boxing, Head impact exposure, Practitioner–researcher positionalityAbstract
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
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nina Costa, Carlos Cardoso, Ricardo de Sousa

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
