Kate Marks

Background: Although gender parity exists at the PhD level within exercise and sport science academia, there is a lack of women in senior leadership roles. This global, mixed-methods study, conducted in 2024, aimed to (a) investigate the specific challenges women face related to family and home responsibilities and (b) examine the demographic characteristics of women working in exercise and sport science academia. Methods: As part of a larger project, participants completed an online survey and follow-up focus groups. This study specifically reports on data from 36 survey items that focused on childcare responsibilities, division of household labor, career concessions, and perceived impact of family on career progression. Focus groups provided deeper insight into these topics. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, group comparisons, and reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three hundred and forty one participants completed the online survey and 37 participated across 10 focus groups. Three themes were generated from the mixed-methods data: (a) (in)visibility of women, characterized by the perceived hypervisibility of women during pregnancy and their invisibility during postpartum; (b) denial or survival of the internal pressure to manage professional and family responsibilities; (c) assumption that Woman = Mother reflecting the common social perception that all women want to be mothers, and those that do not have child caring responsibilities can be called on during nontraditional working times. Conclusion: Findings suggest that women still face family-related challenges in exercise and sport science academia that hinder their career progression.

Background: Women are underrepresented in exercise and sport science (EXSS) academia, particularly in senior and leadership positions. This underrepresentation stems from systemic and cultural factors that limit career progression and opportunities for women. Understanding these barriers is crucial for fostering diverse leadership, equitable mentorship, and inclusion within EXSS academia. This mixed-methods study investigates (a) why fewer women hold senior positions in EXSS academia and (b) the key opportunities and constraints influencing women’s professional experiences and career trajectories, using a feminist–institutional theoretical framework. Methods: A 100-item online survey was completed by 341 women, and 10 remote focus groups were conducted with a subsample of 37 participants. Survey topics included current employment, work–life balance, mentorship and leadership, and academic productivity. Focus groups provided deeper insights into women’s experiences. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, group comparisons, and reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were generated from the mixed-methods data: (a) stereotyping, characterized by the undervaluing of traditionally female qualities and the expectation to adopt traditionally masculine traits for career progression; (b) (in)visibility of women, characterized by the need to advocate for other women, and exclusion from men-dominated networks; and (c) denial or survival, reflecting a belief in meritocracy and acceptance of double standards between women and men in academia. Conclusion: These findings highlight perceived systemic barriers to women’s inclusion in EXSS academia. To foster equitable advancement, institutions and organizations along with men in EXSS academia should improve workplace culture through targeted policies, training, and mentorship initiatives.

Scholars undertaking intersectional research are called upon to address issues of power, positionality, and difference throughout their research. Equitable and experientially informed co-production complements intersectionality with shared principles that centre marginalised voices and interrogate power dynamics. This article responds to the lack of guidance in integrating these two approaches by exploring our experiences of adopting an intersectional approach to co-production. We critically reflect upon the challenges and opportunities of co-production in our intersectional research into inequalities faced by disabled people in relation to physical activity. In collaboration with the UK’s leading organisation for disabled people, Disability Rights UK (DR UK), we created the Moving Intersectionality co-production group that is comprised of disabled people from diverse backgrounds. Reflexive thematic analysis of seven co-production meeting notes, 36 reflective diaries, and nine interviews with co-production partners resulted in the construction of three themes: 1) the paradox of co-production: promise versus reality; 2) negotiating power and conflict in relationship-building; and 3) transformations through shared learning. Taken together, these themes illustrate that intersectional approaches to co-production have the potential to foster equitable relationships for research if they are foregrounded in extensive collective reflexivity. Collective reflexivity enabled us to critically evaluate the challenges we experienced in upholding our co-production principles such as navigating how power between co-production partners was shaping our research. To conclude, we call for further research to utilise intersectionality and co-production as complementary approaches to advance the practice of co-production, to reduce social inequalities and to promote social justice.

Undertaking intersectional research in sport and physical activity is necessarily complex. This paper offers a collaborative self-study (Ovens & Fletcher, Citation2014) of the authors' collective fieldwork experiences of conducting intersectional research at the post-graduate/early career research (ECR) stage in sport and physical activity. The authors' reflections are grounded in personal and theoretical insights, consisting of data from multiple sources including: (1) authors' field notes and reflective journal entries; and (2) collaborative meetings between authors' who acted as critical friends during these discussions. Data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis method (Braun & Clarke, Citation2024). The paper presents a creative nonfiction account that reflects the methodological complexities encountered by the authors' during their intersectional research. Three prominent themes were generated from data analysis: (1) research reality; (2) space and place; and (3) emotion. We conclude by offering some recommendations and opportunities for future intersectional research in sport and physical activity.

Working within the Centre for Social Justice in Sport and Society (CSJ) at Leeds Beckett University, UK, has provided opportunities for the authorship team to work with sports organisations on issues of equity, diversity and inclusion. What has become increasingly apparent is the need to conceive inclusion in ways that move beyond issues of access and participation, a policy or targeted programme. What emerges across our research projects is the significance of belonging to inclusion. Within this paper we offer insights into the embodiment of belonging through four processes – feeling seen, heard, valued and known which form our ‘Anchors of Belonging’ framework. We bring each anchor to life using examples from the CSJ’s research portfolio. We pose several reflective questions organisations might use as a guide to leverage the anchors and adopt a more proactive ­person-centred approach to create an inclusive environment for their workforce.