Annals of Leisure Research

Coproduction in Sport and Physical Activity for Public Health and Wellbeing: Promises, Pitfalls and Possibilities

We invite abstracts for proposed submissions to a special issue of Annals of Leisure Research on ‘Coproduction in Sport and Physical Activity for Public Health and Wellbeing: Promises, Pitfalls and Possibilities’. Accepted proposals will be invited to submit a full paper by the end of October 2025.

Please send a 300 word abstract to editors by 7th March 2025.

Coproduction typically refers to the involvement of people in the design, development and delivery of services they receive (Brandsen and Honingh, 2018). It has become increasingly central to a range of sectors in ensuring public service innovation that meets the needs of citizens. Coproduction has been extensively employed in the public health sector to support service delivery and is increasingly being harnessed in community sport and physical activity to address health and wellbeing challenges in diverse population groups including older adults (Mansfield et al., 2018), youth groups (Luguetti et al., 2023), refugees (Smith et al., 2023) , indigenous populations (Hapeta et al.,2019), and those living with the challenges of physical and mental impairment (Pettican et al., 2023). There is however, no single definition of coproduction, or universally accepted method. Coproduction is often (confusingly) used synonymously with a variety of terms used to denote strategies for working with citizens, including cocreation, codesign, collaborative governance, community participation and civic engagement (Voorberg et al., 2015). Most often the focus of coproduction work prioritises an optimistic view of harmonious relationships and positive outcomes. Less attention has been paid to the complex and contested effects of coproduction processes and outcomes. As Beresford (2019) emphasises, coproduction in the health sector tends to be framed with unidimensional and uncritical models of public participation which offer an over-simplified and inappropriate lens through which to make sense of the complex and contested reality of public involvement strategies.

In this issue we build on critical perspectives on coproduction that have begun in some areas of public health and public service research and in the sport for youth development field but have not yet been fully explored in studies of sport, leisure and physical activity for public health and wellbeing. Steen et al (2018,p. 284) highlight a “normative tendency to optimism” in coproduction which conceals potential issues of responsibility and accountability, demands of time and costs, damaged democratic processes, and reinforcement of existing inequalities. There are risks in coproduction, to research integrity, its credibility and utility and to interpersonal and organisational relationships which are rarely acknowledged (Oliver et al., 2019). Arguably an overly technocratic rationale for coproduction has reinforced an instrumental approach to any type of collaboration in research which tends to see risks and costs as fixed and only relevant for debate where they might impact the value of the research and researchers. Rather, a focus on the democratic rationale opens up the possibility for political debate about who is at risk and who pays the price of coproduction, when, where and how through consideration of the inherent systemic and cultural dynamics of power (Williams et al., 2019).

For this special issue we invite contributions which critically examine the promises, pitfalls and potentials of working with(in) coproduction frameworks. We emphasise the need to interrogate theoretical thinking, policy and practice decisions and public/citizen experiences connected to coproduction in sport and physical activity for public health and wellbeing. We argue that in doing so, we will further knowledge about the contexts in which different principles and practices of coproduction are more or less appropriate and bring new understanding of the infrastructure and resources needed to support meaningful and effective coproduction strategies. Through this special issue we intend to open up space for exploration of the artificial boundaries that limits the potential for an “emancipatory politics of coproduction” (Williams et al., 2019 p.8) in sport and physical activity for health and wellbeing.

Possible areas of focus in the area of sport, leisure, recreation and physical activity for health and wellbeing include:

• Power and privilege in collaborative relationships
• Exploring reciprocity in coproduction
• Negotiating stakeholder perspectives and objectives
• Codesign in sport, leisure, recreation and physical activity for health and wellbeing
• The politics of democracy in coproduction work
• Different and diverse world views of collaboration and coproduction (e.g. in different countries, communities and population groups)
• Failures in coproduction models, systems and strategies
• Negotiating identities, processes and outcomes in coproduction
• Problems of ethics and research integrity in coproduction work
• Exploring trust in collaborative work
• The role of the emotions in coproduction processes
• Critical issues in participatory research in sport for health and wellbeing

References

• Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M., 2018. Definitions of co-production and co-creation. In Co-production and co-creation (pp. 9-17). Routledge.
• Beresford, P., 2019. Public participation in health and social care: exploring the co-production of knowledge. Frontiers in Sociology, 3, p.41.
• Hapeta, J., Stewart-Withers, R. and Palmer, F., 2019. Sport for social change with Aotearoa New Zealand youth: Navigating the theory–practice nexus through indigenous principles. Journal of Sport Management, 33(5), pp.481-492.
• Luguetti, C., Jice, N., Singehebhuye, L., Singehebhuye, K., Mathieu, A. and Spaaij, R., 2023. ‘I know how researchers are […] taking more from you than they give you’: Tensions and possibilities of youth participatory action research in sport for development. Sport, Education and Society, 28(7), pp.755-770.
• Mansfield, L., Kay, T., Anokye, N. and Fox-Rushby, J., 2019. Community sport and the politics of aging: co-design and partnership approaches to understanding the embodied experiences of low-income older people. Frontiers in sociology, 4, p.5.
• Oliver, K., Kothari, A. and Mays, N., 2019. The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?. Health research policy and systems, 17, pp.1-10.
• Pettican, A., Goodman, B., Bryant, W., Beresford, P., Freeman, P., Gladwell, V., Kilbride, C. and Speed, E., 2023. Doing together: Reflections on facilitating the co-production of participatory action research with marginalised populations. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 15(2), pp.202-219.
• Smith, R., Mansfield, L. and Wainwright, E., 2023. ‘Should I really be here?’: Problems of trust and ethics in PAR with young people from refugee backgrounds in sport and leisure. In Forced Migration and Sport (pp. 33-51). Routledge.
• Steen, T., Brandsen, T. and Verschuere, B., 2018. The dark side of co-creation and co-production: seven evils. In Co-production and co-creation (pp. 284-293). Routledge.
• Williams, O., Sarre, S., Papoulias, S.C., Knowles, S., Robert, G., Beresford, P., Rose, D., Carr, S., Kaur, M. and Palmer, V.J., 2020. Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production. Health research policy and systems, 18, pp.1-10.
• Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J. and Tummers, L.G., 2015. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public management review, 17(9), pp.1333-1357.