Crystal Voyle, Michelle Pullen, and Kate Marks reflect on the key points raised at the Co-Production and Physical Activity event held at Durham University in March 2026.
The event was a collaboration between the Durham University Institute for Medical Humanities, the Department of Sport and Exercise Science, and the Moving Social Work project.
The co-production and physical activity event took place at Durham University on 20 March (2026). The one-day hybrid event was attended by more than 60 people from academics, local practitioners, sports partnerships, and students, online and in person.
The discussions
The discussions at the workshop centred on three key questions:
- What is co-production?
- How might we critically address co-production in research and in practice?
- What’s next for co-production and physical activity research?
Co-production can mean a variety of things in different contexts including citizens contributions, integrated knowledge translation, and equitably informed research (Smith et al., 2023). For the purpose of this event, we predominantly considered ‘Equitable and Experientially Informed Co-Production’ (Smith et al., 2023). This is a collaborative research process in which lived experience and experiential knowledge are considered essential, equitable partnerships are explicitly formed to address inequalities in power dynamics, and everyone can actively contribute, influence, and direct the research process (Smith et al., 2023).
Invited speakers from across the UK explored co-production in action, reflecting on methodological tensions and key questions for the future of the field. Speakers included Professor Brett Smith, who offered an overview of co-production; Professor Louise Mansfield who explored the “dark side” of co-production and encouraged attendees to disrupt the normalisation of optimism in co-production relationships; and Dr Anna Pettican, who shared insights into methods for co-producing data collection.
Dr Katey Warran and Dr Olivia Turner discussed co-production in dance research, introducing the term “faux-production” to describe forms of involvement that fail to engage co-production partners meaningfully. Dr Oli Williams shared his work on Elinor Ostrom’s principles for collaborative working, while Dr Kate Marks and Crystal Voyle explored approaches to co-producing data analysis.
A multi-perspective overview
Drawing together key insights from the event, this article brings into conversation the perspectives of Crystal Voyle, a co-production partner; Michelle Pullen, a practitioner at Energize—the Active Partnership for Telford, Shropshire and Wrekin—and former social worker; and Dr Kate Marks an academic at Durham University and host of the event. Together, these perspectives highlight the nuances of each individual’s learning from the day. They demonstrate the importance of events engaging with those from a wide range of backgrounds, both within and beyond academia, and the transferability of co-production principles for use in both research and practice.
Crystal
Coming to the event as someone with lived experience as a co-production partner, I was struck by the conversations about power sharing. Power often seems to be something that a lot of people, particularly researchers, find difficult to relinquish. They struggle to embrace vulnerability, and this can prohibit genuine co-production. You will only ever get through to the general public to create change if you give up pre-conceived ideas.
However, I think it is often forgotten that those with lived experience have a different sort of power within co-production processes, I have a different sort of power I can tap into. I may not have the academic position or knowledge, but that doesn’t mean that I am less powerful. I can see past the academic elements and remind the group about the bottom line of the project, because we share an ultimate goal; we don’t always need to understand it on an abstract level.
A second key point for me was how we consider success in co-production. The speakers considered many outcomes from the research processes, but I think, from a lived experience perspective, we are successful when we apply co-production principles in practice and leave people feeling valued.
Michelle
A key takeaway for me was the statement offered by Prof. Brett Smith at the beginning of the conference about championing the knowledge of lived experience. It highlighted the value that people with lived experience bring. Co-production is not simply an approach to gathering feedback; it requires genuine recognition that lived experience is essential expertise. This should always be the key focus when working with and for the communities we support as an Active Partnership.
Hearing about Dr Kate Marks’s work with the Moving Intersectionality group and how they have co-produced analysis further reinforces the importance of involving people with lived experience from the very beginning through to the end, including setting the parameters of a project or programme.
I also reflected on the principles of co-production. I don’t believe there can be a prescriptive way of co-producing, because every person is different and every project is different. To be truly person-centred, the approach must meet the needs of the individuals, and those needs won’t look the same across people with lived experience. Throughout the day, we heard about a wide range of projects using co-production approaches. These projects were diverse yet kept the focus by remaining grounded in the underpinning principles of co-production. Keeping the principles at the heart of the work but not being bound to a strict set of guidelines feels like the best way to ensure co-production is meaningful and flexible.
I was also reminded of the importance of such flexibility. Especially when it comes to timelines. If we want to truly adopt co-production principles, it’s difficult to stick to fixed timeframes, as people’s needs, health, and personal circumstances can change at any time. We need to be open to that flexibility and change as a project develops.
Kate
The key point I reflected on after the event was how we, as researchers, relate to others in the co-production space. This includes other researchers and co-production partners, funders, and external stakeholders. The various speakers reflected on what co-production has meant in practice for them and particularly emphasised the key role of lived experience, acknowledging both the tensions within the process and the fundamentally relational nature of co-production.
Throughout the day, speakers and attendees spoke openly from their own positions, sharing both expertise and uncertainty, as boundaries between “researcher”, “practitioner”, “partner”, “participant” blurred. Our experiences did not sit neatly within these categories.
This closely reflects my own experience of co-production within the Moving Intersectionality group. I have felt that these varied roles overlap and inform one another. This has meant letting go of some of the pre-conceived notions I had about myself and about others. And ultimately, it has made me more aware of the importance of recognising a shared sense of being human within the research.
Each person shows up with their own situated, unique knowledge and experience, bringing different insights to the overall research project. As Crystal has reminded me in conversations after this event, once we start seeing other people in this way:
We can’t go back—the experience will change you forever
Crystal voyle
During the day, I also reflected on Professor Louise Mansfield’s insight on working towards ‘meaningful involvement’ and her perspective that ‘you can never get as fully involved as you need to be’. During my time as part of the co-production group, striving for meaningful involvement has generated tensions in maintaining what might be considered the ‘professional distance’, traditionally associated with being a researcher.
This idea is something that post-qualitative theorist Elizabeth St Pierre (2013) explores, challenging the idea of stable researcher identities and emphasising the importance of becoming with others in the research process. As I reflect on my co-production journey, and the insights from the event, it is clear to me that engaging ethically with uncertainty has been essential in working towards a more reflexive, relational way of engaging in the research. This produces an ethos shaped by the needs and aspirations of the wider co-production group.
A call to action
Across these three perspectives several key points stand out. These together form a call to action for practitioners, co-production partners, and academics to consider as this field continues to evolve into the future.
- Embrace flexible project design – Co-production cannot be reduced to a checklist or rigid framework. Meaningful collaboration requires flexibility and openness to change throughout the project. Flexibility needs to be understood as central to ethical and person-centred co-production.
- Engage with reflexive uncertainty – The event highlighted the importance of critically assessing power, relationships and researcher identity. Researchers and practitioners need to sit with uncertainty and remain open to being changed by the process itself. This might mean questioning pre-established assumptions and acknowledging discomfort.
- Appreciate success in all its forms – For academics, success might look like publications, resources produced for funders, and the opportunity for impact. However, co-production partners may define success differently. Success might involve increased confidence, feeling heard and respected, developing relationships, and contributing to change that feels meaningful. Genuinely appreciating the spectrum of success is essential.
Conclusion
The Co-Production and Physical Activity event created a valuable space for critical reflection, dialogue, and shared learning across academic, practitioner, and co-production partner perspectives. The conversations throughout the day and beyond highlighted both the transformative potential of co-production and the tensions that continue to shape the field. As interest in co-production continues to grow across the medical humanities, we must ensure that these approaches remain critical, relational, and genuinely collaborative in practice.
About the authors
Kate Marks is a critical scholar in sport and physical activity at the University of Durham. Grounded in intersectional feminist theory and critical disability studies, she examines the structural inequities shaping participation, inclusion, and wellbeing. Using co-production, community-engaged research, and narrative approaches, she leads interdisciplinary projects that centre lived experience. She can be found on LinkedIn.
Crystal Voyle is a member of the Moving Intersectionality Co-Production group. She has a background in nursing, midwifery, and complementary therapies. She also has an MA in Museum Studies. Crystle is a lived-experience researcher with disability and was diagnosed with neurodiversity in later life.
Michelle Pullen is Programme Manager for Communities, Health and Social Care at Energize Shropshire, Telford & Wrekin (STW), one of 42 organisations in the Active Partnerships network. Her work focuses on building stronger connections between physical activity, health and social care, and on supporting systems change that helps make movement a meaningful and sustainable part of people’s daily lives.
References
Smith, Brett, Oli Williams, Lydia Bone, and the Moving Social Work Co-production Collective. 2023. ‘Co-Production: A Resource to Guide Co-Producing Research in the Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences’. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 15 (2): 159–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2022.2052946.
St. Pierre, Elizabeth Adams. 2013. ‘The Appearance of Data’. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 13 (4): 223–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613487862.
