A safe space in a strange place: A case study of the safety mechanisms of CrossFit culture

Abstract

Based on a 1‐year ethnographic case study of a Copenhagen‐based CrossFit gym we demonstrate how an organized training place is made physically, psychologically, and socially safe. This we show empirically by analyzing how the local multi‐sited CrossFit gym ‘CHALK’ maintains its safe space through three organizing mechanisms: (1) coach‐led learning progression and practice of the physical craft of CrossFit exercise, intended to prevent injury; (2) a dynamic relation between ‘Rx’ and ’scaling’, that is, setting universal standards for an exercise (Rx) and adjusting to individual levels of competence (scaling), actively preventing the high intensity workout from becoming high risk and from setting idealized norms that only few can live up to, but feel compelled to pursue nonetheless; (3) an egalitarian culture whose practice enables members to participate regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, socio‐economic class, sexual orientation, and prior exercise experience. Our ethnomethodological approach further allows us to discuss how certain signifiers of difference are recognized but either do not become salient or do not matter in respect to the functional training. Rather, we find and argue for the possibility to engage in ‘tomboy‐ish behavior’ that challenges gender and other identity performances in CHALK. In identifying necessary and sufficient conditions for establishing safe space, the article contributes to extant literature, showing how safe space can emerge as an effect of everyday practice, in contrast to being intentional and declared.

Full text

Received: 21 December 2022
-
Revised: 29 January 2024
-
Accepted: 4 April 2024
DOI: 10.1111/gwao.13134
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A safe space in a strange place: A case study of
the safety mechanisms of CrossFit culture
Thomas Burø
1
|Jannick Friis Christensen
2
|Linea Munk Petersen
3
1
Engineering Technology and Didactics,
Technical University of Denmark, Ballerup,
Denmark
2
Research and Early Development People and
Organization Business Partnering, Novo
Nordisk, Måløv, Denmark
3
Department of Communication, University
of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Correspondence
Thomas Burø, Technical University of
Denmark, Lautrupvang 15, Ballerup 2750,
Denmark.
Email: tbur@dtu.dk
Funding information
Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond
Abstract
Based on a 1‐year ethnographic case study of a
Copenhagen‐based CrossFit gym we demonstrate how an
organized training place is made physically, psychologically,
and socially safe. This we show empirically by analyzing
how the local multi‐sited CrossFit gym ‘CHALK’ maintains
its safe space through three organizing mechanisms: (1)
coach‐led learning progression and practice of the physical
craft of CrossFit exercise, intended to prevent injury; (2) a
dynamic relation between ‘Rx’ and ’scaling’, that is, setting
universal standards for an exercise (Rx) and adjusting to
individual levels of competence (scaling), actively prevent-
ing the high intensity workout from becoming high risk and
from setting idealized norms that only few can live up to,
but feel compelled to pursue nonetheless; (3) an egalitarian
culture whose practice enables members to participate
regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, socio‐economic class,
sexual orientation, and prior exercise experience. Our
ethnomethodological approach further allows us to discuss
how certain signifiers of difference are recognized but
either do not become salient or do not matter in respect to
the functional training. Rather, we find and argue for the
possibility to engage in ‘tomboy‐ish behavior’ that chal-
lenges gender and other identity performances in CHALK.
In identifying necessary and sufficient conditions for
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which per-
mits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifica-
tions or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. Gender, Work & Organization published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Gender Work Organ. 2025;32:75–99. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gwao
-
75

establishing safe space, the article contributes to extant
literature, showing how safe space can emerge as an effect
of everyday practice, in contrast to being intentional and
declared.
KEYWORDS
CrossFit, ethnography, safe space
1
|
INTRODUCTION, OR WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR A SPACE TO BE SAFE?
She confidently grips the loaded barbell, draws in a breath of air, locks her core, activates her
shoulders, gaze neutral, and then executes three powerful 105 kg deadlifts. The exercise places the
entire body under immediate tension and fires the nervous system. She smiles.
From the feminist and anti‐racist activist traditions emerged the contemporary understanding of declared safe
space (Collins, 2000). For the marginalized groups that typically occupied and created these spaces, the experience
of safety required the declared and enacted absence of physical violence, the psychological pressures of, for
example, compulsory heteronormativity, sexism, racism, and social safety in the form of community building around
a shared identity. But saying so, does not make it so (Fleming & Banerjee, 2016). Literature on psychological safety
(Edmondson, 2018) shows that for people to feel safe to take interpersonal risk in organizational settings, it is
insufficient to collectively agree that such behavior is welcomed. What matters is the response of others—especially
leaders or, in the case of our study, coaches—whose reactions will co‐determine whether the space remains psy-
chologically safe. Thus, in this article, we explore the question of what makes a space feel physically, psycholog-
ically, and socially safe.
Applications and definitions of safe spaces vary greatly and the concept has been discussed as an example of
subaltern counterpublics (Fraser, 1992; Waugh, 2019), networked publics (Boyd, 2014; Clark‐Parsons, 2018;
Pascar et al., 2022), as intra‐organizational activist groups (Bairstow, 2007; Fournier & Kelemen, 2001), and as
religion‐based separatist practice (Frenkel & Wasserman, 2023). To study the production of safe space, we turn to
the woman deadlifting and the physical culture of CrossFit. This provides a case of a social space that is experienced
by participants to be safe, but which at the same time is not a declared safe space and which may appear to non‐
participants as unsafe. Based on our ethnographic fieldwork, we argue that the CrossFit gym (called a Box*
1
) is an
‘extreme case’ (Flyvbjerg, 2006) of a space where participants collaboratively achieve the production of physical,
psychological, and social safety. We study the mechanisms that produce the experience of safety and discuss the
extent to which these site‐specific mechanisms can be abstracted, teaching us about the production of safe space in
other organizational contexts.
1.1
|
The context of CrossFit—An extreme case
CrossFit has become an established form of physical exercise known for its culture and community (Lenneis
et al., 2022). Since its inception in Santa Cruz in 2000, the branded fitness regimen has spread to become a globally
diffused paradigm of physical culture with more than 14,000 official affiliate gyms worldwide (Dominski
et al., 2019). Much research on CrossFit has focused on risk and safety (Edmonds, 2021; Thompson & Isisag, 2022;
76
-
BURØ ET AL.

Ángel Rodríguez et al., 2022), yet few researchers have explicitly studied the socio‐material safety mechanisms of
CrossFit boxes. Notable examples are Sanchez (2019) showing that within a US context, some women‐of‐color
experience alienation, invisibility, code switching, and discomfort with non‐genuine cultural representation in
some CrossFit boxes. In this case, the intersection of race and gender makes CrossFit's social space difficult, if not
emotionally unsafe, exacerbating lines of tension already present in the social fabric of the USA. Additionally,
Prewitt‐White et al. (2018) studied a cohort of women, who had practiced CrossFit during pregnancy, concluding
that they experienced being able to modify exercises to enable physically safe CrossFit exercise.
Other studies focus on the complicated heteronormative and androcentric dimension of box spaces, including
how they both reproduce and facilitate practitioners' explicit challenge to gender norms (Schrijnder et al., 2021).
CrossFit is commonly perceived to be a masculine social space, with emphasis on strength, competition, and power
(e.g., Kerry, 2017; Knapp, 2015). This perception aligns with the notion that sports in general is an ‘arena of
masculinity’ (Pronger, 1992) and a space for male ‘power at play’ (Messner, 1995), making such arenas socially
unsafe for people who do not conform to masculine norms for social relations and competitive hierarchies. This
makes the places and spaces of sport interesting sites to study safe space.
Even though only a few studies examine CrossFit in the light of safe space there is much literature on the social
and physical safety of CrossFit. Broadly, this research comes in two sets: (1) physiological and psychological studies,
and (2) cultural and sociological studies. All studies agree that CrossFit is a method for conditioning strength*,
cardio‐vascular endurance*, and flexibility* by combining exercises from powerlifting*, Olympic weightlifting*,
gymnastics*, calisthenics*, aerobics, and mobility* exercise into high intensity functional training workouts called
WOD* (workout‐of‐the‐day). Practitioners typically exercise in classes led by a coach, often involving teams and
workout partners, why practitioners forge social ties based on shared experiences. There is general agreement that
CrossFit continues to foster communities rooted in individual boxes, as well as in the imagined global community.
In terms of physical safety, the main concern in physiological and psychological studies is injury (Feito
et al., 2019). Hak et al. (2013) calculated an injury rate of 3.1 incidents per 1000 h trained, similar to Olympic
weightlifting, powerlifting and gymnastics. Based on 25 relevant studies, Ángel Rodríquez et al. (2022) conclude
that the incidence rate of injury varies between 0.2 and 18.9. Coaching is one of the factors that further reduces
risk of injury (Weisenthal et al., 2014). Mullins (2015) argues that programming workouts with many repetitions
increases risk of injury as practitioners become exhausted and start losing proper exercise form*. Overtraining and
exertional fatigue may also cause injury. The most notorious, but very rare, is rhabdomyolysis (Drum et al., 2017).
Novices are more prone to injury (Ángel Rodríguez et al., 2022). In terms of gender, men are more likely to sustain
injury (Montalvo et al., 2017). Finally, CrossFit practitioners have been demonstrated to be at risk of exercise
addiction (Lichtenstein & Jensen, 2016) and eating disorders (Mavrandrea & Gonidakis, 2022).
Few studies take coaches as their object of inquiry (Heywood, 2016; Nash, 2018). Certification as a level 1*
CrossFit coach requires attending a weekend seminar. There is no inspection of boxes from any independent
authority (Edmonds, 2021). Caldas and Miranda's (2021) survey of CrossFit coaches in Brazil––that counts the
second largest number of boxes outside of the U.S.––finds that up to 38.4% of coaches have no certification. While
there are descriptions of coaches rewarding practitioners for ‘pushing it’ (Edmonds, 2020), there is little data on
how coaches use scaling to create a safe and inclusive environment, or its opposite, how coaches use scaling to
pressure practitioners into risky and harmful exercises.
Cultural and sociological studies have explored the safety of CrossFit in other ways. Thompson and Isisag's
question ‘why do consumers put their bodies at risk?’ (2020) encapsulates a line of inquiry that foregrounds the
pain, suffering, and risk of injury in CrossFit (Edmonds, 2021; Scott et al., 2017,2019). The majority of research
literature applies a variety of qualitative methods to study the practice (Edmonds, 2020; Herz, 2014; Mur-
phy, 2012), culture (Bailey et al., 2019; Ornella, 2015), discursive and semiotic characteristics (James & Gill, 2018;
Powers & Greenwell, 2017), gender dynamics (Washington & Economides, 2016; Knapp, 2015A, 2015B), and the
space and place‐making of CrossFit (Crockett & Butryn, 2018). These articles describe CrossFit communities as
committed to an egalitarian‐competitive ethos that articulates inclusivity regardless of gender, sexual orientation,
BURØ ET AL.
-
77

age, ethnicity, and equality in access while celebrating competition and hierarchies of competence. At the same
time, most disabled bodies will be prevented from participating, why Adaptive CrossFit* has emerged (Camp-
bell, 2020). Further, research has demonstrated that the expressed commitment to social equality and inclusivity
are complicated by the representation, perception, and actuality of CrossFit as a white, androcentric, hetero-
normative space (Sanchez, 2019; Kerry, 2017; Knapp, 2015A). Thus, extant literature on CrossFit provides strong
indicators for Crossfit spaces to be ambiguously safe.
1.2
|
Problematization and research question
Based on an ethnographic case study of a multi‐site CrossFit box (anonymized and henceforth called ‘CHALK’) in
Copenhagen, Denmark, we claim that a salient property of CHALK is that it is experienced to be safe and to
promote physical, psychological, and social safety for people across spectra of diversity. Yet, CHALK does not
promote, market, or brand itself as being a safe space. The perception of safety is based on participants' experience
of the material setting and organized practice and culture of CHALK. We argue that CHALK is an example of an
emergent safe space, constituted and conditioned by a set of mechanisms at the core of CHALK's culture. This is in
line with extant research (e.g., Schrijnder et al., 2021; Washington & Economides, 2016) that demonstrates that the
organized spaces of CrossFit boxes are socially safe spaces for female and non‐heteronormative gender perfor-
mance and expression. Our study contributes to the still developing re‐conceptualization of safe spaces by adding
to the focus on their creation and maintenance through ‘relational work’ (The Roestone Collective, 2014) in
expanding types of safety considered important in safe spaces. We conceptualize the three types of safety as co‐
constitutive, as we have observed these to be important in the case of CHALK.
The case of CHALK shows the necessity of looking beyond expected safe spaces, assumed to exist primarily in
pedagogical or explicitly queer contexts, and adds nuances of non‐binary gender performances encouraged by
centering physical and technical capability rather than gender identity. A narrow focus on ‘declared’ safe space (The
Roestone Collective, 2014) comes with a risk of overlooking what may be learned from non‐intentional safe spaces
that emerge from everyday practice. We claim that CrossFit boxes are extreme, and therefore relevant sites to
study the production of safe space (cf. Flyvbjerg, 2006). The question then remains what the production and
maintenance of safe spaces in CrossFit boxes can teach us about how concepts of safety, and in particular safe
spaces, can be expanded to also include the safe spaces in places where we do not expect to find it.
In the analysis of our ethnographic data, we identify three organizing mechanisms that enable the particular
and situated experience of CHALK as a safe space: (1) A coach‐led learning progression and practice of the physical
craft of CrossFit exercise, intended to prevent injury. (2) A dynamic relation between Rx* and scaling*, that is,
setting universal standards for an exercise (Rx) and adjusting exercises to individual levels of competence (scaling),
actively preventing the high intensity* workout from becoming high risk and from setting idealized norms that only
few can live up to, but feel compelled to pursue nonetheless. (3) An egalitarian culture practicpracticed in CHALK,
enabling members to participate regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, socio‐economic class, sexual orientation, and
prior exercise experience. While still being exposed to invading norms and gendered expectations from outside the
space, CHALK continuously confronts challenges to its egalitarian culture. In other words, CHALK is a place of
physical, psychological, and social safety.
As such, we answer the research question: What everyday practices produce the safety of CHALK? In doing so, our
study demonstrates how a specific kind of safe space is achieved in the unlikely and strange place of a CrossFit box
organized for high intensity functional training with an emphasis on physical strength. When we argue that CHALK
is a safe space, we do not mean to belittle individual experiences with sustaining injuries. Neither do we intend to
ignore that some CrossFit boxes can and continue to be experienced as toxic environments. The article progresses
with a narrative literature review (Tranfield et al., 2003) of extant research literature on safe space. We proceed to
present our research methods, after which we analyze the everyday practices that are necessary and sufficient
78
-
BURØ ET AL.

conditions for CHALK to be a safe space. In conclusion, we discuss the theoretical implication of our findings with
regards to the concept of safe space, suggesting that safe space should be conceived dynamically, and that a safe
space is only as safe as its enculturated participants enable it to be, declared or not.
1.3
|
Spaces and places of risk and safety
Literature tends to present safe space as an invention by feminist, queer, and anti‐racist social movements that
sought to create self‐defined spaces (Collins, 2000: pp. 110–112). More specifically, contemporary ideas of safe
space emerged from the social movements in 1960s and ‘70s in the USA and were then intended as separatist
attempts of creating contained areas for marginalized groups. This interpretation of ‘safe’ was simultaneously
meant to imply an intended, deliberate absence of physical and psychological violence, sexism, heteronormativity,
and racism (Kenney, 2001) and a freedom to perform collective consciousness raising and build community. In this
sense, safe space is thus a form of direct action, as it is designed to meet the needs of people marginalized in society
(Ketchum, 2021; Sarachild, 1978). The concept has been translated into other social arenas outside of queer and
feminist circles, most notably in educational and pedagogical contexts (Flensner & Von der Lippe, 2019; Lad-
wig, 2022; Palfrey, 2017). Here, the argument is premised on the idea that for students to be able to participate
fully and learn independently of their particular identities, safety must be established through ‘the absence of risk,
danger, harm, controversy, and other difficulties’ (Ladwig, 2022, p. 754). Additionally, some work has been done in
social geography studies on geographically bounded safe spaces, for example, in relation to safe spaces in the home
for women with health issues (Coyle, 2004), and co‐created safe spaces in suburban environments for queer groups
(Bain & Podmore, 2021).
Across disciplines, the understanding of safe spaces in terms of dynamic processes rather than preemptively
defined intervention has emerged in recent literature on the concept (see e.g., Fast, 2018; The Roestone
Collective, 2014):
Safe spaces […] can be fluid and localised to different contexts, synchronous or asynchronous spaces.
It is worth emphasising that no space can be entirely ‘safe’; the creation of such spaces in an ongoing
process, rather than an absolute guarantee.
(Waugh, 2019, p. 147)
For the purpose of our study, we take our departure in these newer developments and do not refer to static
and a contextual notions of un/safe spaces, but rather highlight the sometimes random and always contingent
nature of the concept. Additionally, we follow The Roestone Collective, 2014 in conceiving of safe space in dynamic
terms:
[S]afe spaces should be understood through the relations that produce them. From this recognition
we can understand that cultivating safe space is dependent on social norms. This work is both
symbolic and material. It is ever‐incomplete. As such, it is full of possibilities; safe spaces are sites
where dualistic or simplistic social norms reveal their pores.
(The Roestone Collective, 2014, p. 1360)
A space is not simply safe; it is made safe. Since it is always only safe to some and not others, a space cannot be
safe per se in any absolute sense of the word (Christensen, 2018). Whether a given space is safe is ultimately a
matter of perception, that is, subjective assessment, not objective criteria (The Roestone Collective, 2014), why
safe space cannot be predetermined. It thus becomes relevant to study how safe spaces are re/produced by its
BURØ ET AL.
-
79

members through everyday practice. Moreover, it means that we might gain from empirical studies of less than
obvious safe spaces, such as CrossFit boxes, compared to intentional and declared safe spaces.
2
|
DATA AND METHODS
Initially, we wanted to study CrossFit as physical culture. To this end, we conducted ethnographic fieldwork,
composed of a 1‐year ethnomethodological study, semi‐structured interviews, and the collection of documents,
artifacts, photography, video, and social media material (e.g., see Figure 1–3.). The purpose of the research design
was to create direct, phenomenological observation of practicing CrossFit (Allen‐Collinson, 2009; Have, 2005), and
direct observation of how CrossFit practitioners observe and interpret their own practice.
2.1
|
Ethnomethodology
Author T enrolled in a local CrossFit box in his neighborhood in Copenhagen, Denmark. T participated in classes
teaching beginners the fundamentals. He started participating in WODs, supplemented with solo training* in Open
Gym* where you train at your own discretion without coaching or formal programming. He scribbled field notes
after training sessions. After a few months, his routine consisted of five weekly workouts. For 4 months T also took
classes with a personal trainer, coach Kim, who identifies as non‐binary and uses they/them pronouns. The aim of
the ethnomethodological study was to learn the social order of practicing CrossFit (Garfinkel, 1991). The field
entries mostly contained notes of direct observations on learning skills, practicing movements, and learning to
navigate the social and cultural space of CHALK. Descriptions of the social space and physical place served to
establish the context of practice. Coaches and members were not made objects of strict observation since in the
ethnomethodological practice, it is the method of social order that is the object, not the particular people doing it.
Another reason is that during a 60‐min intense workout there is little mental surplus to make but the most su-
perficial participatory observations. This means that while direct observation data on members and coaches is
anecdotal, direct observation on the experience of learning how to do CrossFit is systematic. The field journals
hence document a year of learning the method of a local CrossFit community.
The ethnomethodological study has been supplemented with J's 4 years' experience with practicing CrossFit in
another Copenhagen‐based CrossFit box, and L's experience with amateur‐level powerlifting and bodybuilding.
Together, the team of authors is of mixed genders and sexual orientation; they also represent different generations
and social backgrounds. Rather than taking a confessional approach to researcher positionality by disclosing our
genders, queer identities, or other markers of difference as part of this methods section, we address them
throughout the analysis when they become salient and relevant in terms of their consequences for our study of
CHALK. In other words, we treat our reflections of how we are positioned to study and interpret the field not as an
afterthought, but integral to our analysis of CHALK. This methodological decision is important because we do not
write about, nor do we focus on, identity categories in themselves. Congruent with the argument of Crawley (2022),
ethnomethodology repositions gender (or sexuality, race, etc.) from individual identity to jointly produced social
relations. This ongoing production we treat as the performative everyday practices through which the CHALK safe
space is accomplished and not as a methodological resource for doing the study. Gender and related diversity
categories form part of our analysis provided that they emerge in situ, in which case they say something about our
object of inquiry. This largely inductive approach is different from the deductive approach of using predetermined
conceptions of gender a priori, which first of all comes with the risk of subsuming all other categories of difference
(if looking for gender, what you find is gender), but also potentially hinders the discovery of new emerging cate-
gories of relevance to the particular research site (Rodriquez et al., 2016), as has been one unexpected reflection
produced by our data.
80
-
BURØ ET AL.

2.2
|
Interviews and video recordings
We designed a semi‐structured interview guide. The purpose was to create data on interviewees' experience and
interpretation of practicing CrossFit. In total, we interviewed 24 able bodied practitioners, selected based on
snowball sampling (Noy, 2008). Sampling was not designed to achieve representation of society at large but
designed for ‘meaning‐saturation’ (Hennink et al., 2017). When we stopped recruiting, we had interviewed 16 men,
eight women, ages 21–47. Interviewees were of Danish ethnicity, with two from ethnic backgrounds other than
Danish. We did not ask about sexual orientation (due to General Data Protection Regulation), but one self‐
identified as homosexual. Each interview ranged from 60 to 90 min. In addition, we conducted six formal in-
terviews with male coaches and box managers that had experience with both CHALK and other CrossFit boxes. The
purpose of interviewing coaches was to create data on how they perceive practicing and coaching CrossFit. To
document WODs and create visual data on social interaction, three regular and random workout sessions were
video recorded at CHALK.
FIGURE 1 Interior of CHALK, open gym, February 2022.
FIGURE 2 Dumbbells and kettlebells (8–60 kg), medicine balls, and a bucket of chalk.
BURØ ET AL.
-
81

2.3
|
Research ethics
We obtained informed consent from coaches at CHALK to conduct an ethnomethodological study of CrossFit
practice. All interviewees were informed, prior to interview, of the purpose of the study, anonymization policy, and
their right to opt out and withdraw participation in the study. Video recordings were made with full informed
consent from participants. CHALK, the coaches, and all interviewees have been fully anonymized.
2.4
|
Analytical process
Taking our cue from grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014), we developed a first round of open coding of data to
identify themes (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). We found that ‘intensity,’ ‘skill,’ ‘safety,’ ‘scaling,’ ‘Rx,’ ‘injury,’ ‘diversity,’
‘equality,’ and ‘coaching’ are common devices that interviewees use to make sense of their CrossFit practice. A
second round of coding focused on ‘risk and safety,’ ‘diversity and inclusion,’ and ‘proficiency.’ This gave rise to the
hypothesis that practitioners perceive CrossFit boxes to be safe spaces. The initial findings and the safe space
hypothesis were shared and discussed among all three authors in collective reflections (Gilmore & Kenny, 2015)
with two coaches from CHALK. The coaches validated the accuracy of descriptions of practice and commented on
the findings, providing additional data on the maintenance of CHALK as a safe space. On the basis and back of this
reflexive process, we finally formulated our research question and proceeded to analyze our data to identify the
necessary and sufficient conditions that explain how practitioners perceive CHALK and other boxes to be a safe
space.
3
|
ANALYSIS
The analysis is divided into three parts. Each presents an analysis of an organizing mechanism that contributes to
creating a certain kind of safe space. First, we demonstrate how coaches' practices enable the prevention of injury.
Then we show how Rx and its scaling options give practitioners a common frame of reference for exercise
FIGURE 3 Rope and pull‐up rack for gymnastic exercises.
82
-
BURØ ET AL.

standards, weights, and repetitions, and how it enables practitioner autonomy in adjusting or choosing alternative
exercises relative to individual levels of competence. Finally, we describe the egalitarian culture in CHALK. We argue
that safe exercise, autonomy in adjusting standard exercises, and social spaciousness make up the necessary and
sufficient conditions for CHALK to be experienced as a safe space.
3.1
|
Coaching practices
3.1.1
|
Instruction
CrossFit practitioners execute a set of different movements, ranging from simple (a sit‐up*) to complicated (clean
and jerk*). Few movements are self‐explanatory, and instruction is a fundamental part of any training session. The
coach explains and demonstrates a movement and asks practitioners to ‘show it.’ This enables the coach to quickly
assess whether anyone needs attention, and it enables each practitioner to assess whether they feel comfortable
with a movement, Rx, and number of repetitions. Once the workout has begun and the clock is ticking, the coach
continues to assess and correct practitioners' execution of exercises.
Coach Tim shows us how to do kettlebell* deadlifts. He shows the move with two 24 kg kettlebells
(Rx), while describing how the legs are to be slightly bent, flat feet, the back kept straight, neutral
gaze, the core and shoulders active, and the arms active but not pulling the kettlebells. ‘Try to position
your feet in a narrow hip wide stance. And let the kettlebells be parallel to your ankles.’ He asks us to
do five repetitions. ‘A pro tip: try to grip the kettlebell by the bend, that reduces the length of the
movement. Lift the kettlebells alongside your legs and avoid leaning forward. It will require too much
strength from your back.’ He asks us to do five more repetitions while he scans the room.
(Fieldnote, 07/09/22)
The Kettlebell deadlift is a movement that appears straightforward, like picking up grocery bags. As one
execution of a deadlift with a 24 kg kettlebell in each hand is obviously different from 15 repetitions, asking
practitioners to do a set of five is a way to gently force practitioners to assess if the weight is adequate, and to allow
the coach to spot executions that need correction.
3.1.2
|
Correction and intervention
Once the workout starts, the coach continues scanning, assessing, and correcting.
I am doing ten toes to bar*. It is not pretty, but I can get my feet to the bar now. Coach Tim steps up and
says: ‘when you compress, you lean too far back into the movement. It requires more strength and
energy. Try to work on compressing your hips instead, so you don’t need to lean so far back.’ I nod and
do the final three reps, trying to heed his advice. Panting, I look at him. He grins. ‘I think I need to work
on my compressions,’ I mumble. He replies, ‘Yeah. Those flexors.’ During the remaining repetitions I
revert to doing knee raises* instead.
(Fieldnote, 07/09/22)
In this situation, the coach corrects a movement with the aim of improving form. Sometimes, the coach needs to
intervene, which is different from a plain correction. An intervention happens when a coach interrupts someone in
their exercise, typically, to prevent someone from learning to do a movement in a wrong way or to prevent
BURØ ET AL.
-
83

someone from hurting themselves. In our video recordings of workout sessions, we captured a moment of inter-
vention that addressed both (Figure 4–6).
Coach Simon describes a situation, also with reference to the snatch movement which is a difficult movement
that requires explosive force, mobility, and precision:
If I see them do a snatch that really isn’t very nice, then I would say: ‘I suggest you scale down in
weight. And then focus on technique.’ And if they say, ‘I just want to go heavy today,’ then (I’d say) ‘I
think you should do clean and jerk. You can do that a bit heavier, but your technique is better.’ There,
he still gets the heavy element, and not the technique I had originally intended.
The coach articulates the need for intervention. Performing an Olympic lift* with poor technique makes it risky.
Interventive correction by coaches must be matched by practitioners who are willing to evaluate their own level of
competence, agree to change their level of intensity, and focus on training their mechanics and consistency in
executing a movement in proper form. In other words, the intervention mechanism is conditioned by practitioners'
confidence in the coach as CHALK's legitimate authority with the mandate to intervene in their affairs. A coach is
expected to know the movements, know how to teach them, and know how to use them to raise the level of
practitioner competence while doing their part in the system of CHALK to minimize risk of injury.
3.1.3
|
Coach authority
The formal and informal authority of the coach is supported or negated by practitioners. When the coach instructs
class, everyone listens. Practitioner Michael says,
Yes. You listen in the beginning [of class]. That is, when the coach explains what WOD we are going to
do and what it consists of. You don’t chit chat, even if you know each other well. I think that is a very
clear [social rule] that is enforced either by the coach or by you being (laughs) reprimanded. Right?
‘We are here to do a workout, right? We don’t have much time,’ and so on.
Listening, keeping quiet, and shutting up when told, acknowledges the authority of the coach in session. But
sometimes practitioners do not listen, or they keep talking while the coach is instructing, which is experienced by
other practitioners as a breach of the social rules of CHALK. A gendered motif running through our interviews is
female coaches correcting male practitioners. In the formulation of Simon, a head coach,
For women it is more difficult to correct some slightly older men, than it is for a man to correct an
older man. It is as if those older men don't really listen to women when they bring corrections.
This is an example of how gender dynamics influence practitioners' recognition of coach authority and affect
practitioner's consent to being instructed and corrected. In general, coaches are mindful of how gender may in-
fluence practitioners’ behavior in executing movements.
Coach Kim says, ‘the young dudes are quick to lift (too) heavy and perhaps they don’t train the
movement itself. The women keep the weight low for a long time and perhaps they typically get
technically better than the men, but then they increase weight more slowly. I need to nudge them to
lift heavier.’
(Fieldnote, 28/04/22)
84
-
BURØ ET AL.

The coach may correct ‘the young dudes’ for lifting too heavy without adequate form and induce women to try
adding more weight, because they have the technique. This knowledge is a pattern of coach observations indicating
a need to pay attention to practitioners along gendered lines, and it indicates that gender dynamics affect the
exercise behavior and authority structures in CHALK. The example of the female coach correcting older men can
easily be read as an indicator of a sexist exercise environment. While such situations are often referred to as
exceptions to the rule of coach authority by practitioners, the invasion of oppressive gender stereotypes into a,
supposedly, safe space is important for our understanding of how safe spaces come to exist outside where we
would expect them to. We will later explore this crucial nuance as we analyze CHALK's mechanism of
egalitarianism.
In general, the sentiment is that practitioners should heed the coaching they receive unless the coach is
incompetent (and gender or age do not, ideally, get to serve as proxies or indicators of in/competence). This implies
that in CHALK, coaches function as leaders with legitimate authority to instruct, correct, and intervene in exercise
behavior, but no legitimate power to coerce practitioners to change their execution of exercises or general exercise
behavior. To gain this tacit consent from practitioners is a coach's ongoing task: it requires that practitioners have
FIGURE 4 Coach Alex is analyzing a movement (a ‘power snatch*’).
FIGURE 5 Coach Alex intervenes in an incorrect movement, verbally suggesting a lighter lift.
BURØ ET AL.
-
85

trust in a coach's knowledge of skills, their ability to observe and perceive movement, and their personalities.
Practitioners react promptly to coaches not living up to the requirements that practitioners expect from them by
commenting on a coach, picking classes with other coaches, or ultimately by complaining to management. At the
same time, coaches are not perceived as illegitimate if they do not master all movements; rather, it may even boost
coach legitimacy if they are comfortable with saying something like “I am really bad at this exercise. Is there anyone
in the room who can show it?”
3.2
|
Scaling Rx
In CHALK, WODs are programmed centrally by a head coach and the individual coach in class often only has in-
fluence on warm‐ups* and finishers*. In a WOD, all exercises have a standard of form. The exercises that use
resistance from weights have the load and a set number of repetitions prescribed by the programming coach.
The photograph (Figure 7) depicts the weight load for Front squat* and Hang power cleans*, set at 50 kg for men,
35 for women. The set weight is called ‘Rx’*, which is a term borrowed from medical jargon that denotes the
treatment ‘prescribed’ by a doctor. In CHALK, calling a weight load ‘Rx’ means that the exercise is meant to
stimulate and affect the practitioner in a specific way, for instance by setting an exact number of front squats and
load. ‘To Rx’ an exercise means to execute it as prescribed and to deviate from the prescribed form is called
‘scaling.’ The logic of scaling is to retain the stimulus of an exercise while reducing the level of difficulty, for
example, doing front squats at lower weight is still going to target legs and core but won't risk injury if your form
and strength level is not up to par for the ‘prescription’. During the instruction part of a WOD, the coach dem-
onstrates an exercise and explains how to scale it. Coach Alex instructs the benchmark workout* Ziggy Stardust
which involves 10 repetitions of a kettlebell snatch. Rx is 24 kg/16 kg.
Now, let’s look at kettlebell snatch.* Like I said before, each round is only one arm. So you should be
scaling the weight preferably for something where you can do ten reps unbroken on one arm. (Video
recording)
FIGURE 6 Instructional cues are given: correct back, shoulder blades and leg posture in set up phase; slower
lift in the first part of movement, and activation of lats. Also, a suggestion to decrease weight load.
86
-
BURØ ET AL.

3.3
|
Rx is a heuristic ideal and scaling is the norm
Because Rx is the prescribed standard, scaling easily becomes devalued as less than ideal. Coach Simon reflects on
the Rx and how he is mindful of normalizing scaling as part of the instruction,
Rx is the upper limit to how difficult it is… It has to make sense in relation to the workout. When I’m
introducing a workout, even if I can do the Rx, I try to say, ‘Rx is for those who can lift these kilos, and
everyone else, we work at this load. Which I will introduce now.’ In this fashion I introduce myself as
someone who works scaled. I also make it easier for myself sometimes. In this way, it is as if it is easier
for them to go lighter in weight or do ring rows* instead of pull‐ups* or another form of scaling.
Coach Simon instructs the standard exercise as well as the scaling options, and he also includes himself as
someone ‘who scales’ to make it more legitimate for people to scale the exercises. Rx is a cultural device that
differentiates people's performative capacity into ‘can’ and ‘cannot,’ and since Rx is the most difficult, it functions as
a heuristic ideal. Yet, in CHALK, scaling is the practiced norm,
Coach Tim explains that much has happened during the last eight years. People, coaches included,
have become more proficient. In the beginning [years, 2008–2015, eds.], scaling was an option, but
not the norm. Rx was the norm, so that was what people aimed for––whether they could or not. He
says, ‘people stopped during an AMRAP* because there were heavy lifts they could not do. Then they
just had to get stronger, or something.’ Tim says the last part with a wry smile, as if to suggest it was
foolish.
(Fieldnote, 26/07/22)
FIGURE 7 The exercises, number of repetitions, Rx weight, time cap, and a scaling option marked with (*).
BURØ ET AL.
-
87

The quote indicates a wider held perception among experienced coaches and practitioners that scaling has
become normal in contrast to the ‘early days’ of CrossFit. Coach Tim qualifies his understanding with his obser-
vation that people have become ‘more proficient,’ which includes better at assessing when to scale. In other words,
the function of the Rx‐scaling mechanism is to enable people to participate in the workout regardless of their level
of competence.
3.4
|
Egalitarian culture
Regardless of experience, gender, socio‐economic class, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, able‐bodiedness, politics,
and other markers of difference, everyone faces the same workout––which must then be adjusted to individual
capability. A member expressed it succinctly: ‘you are your capability.’ Another practitioner, Charlotte, reflects,
Yesterday, there was a dude who really looked like he was from the suburbs west of Copenhagen. You
know, he walked with his feet pointing to the side and a tall cap on top of his head. Ugly tattoos and a
wife beater. Big shorts. I don’t think he was so trained. But there is room for him too! There is also
room for Lone aged 45 years, who stood next to me. Who couldn’t really do many of the exercises
because she had a bad knee and her elbow joints hurt. But I got to talk to Lone and learned why she
had a bad knee, why she could not do pistol squats. I often thought that there are many different kinds
of people…it is like we wear a uniform in the box. All the ladies wear tight leggings and a sports top.
When we get to the locker room to change, then someone jumps in their fur boots or something.
Others jump in a boiler suit. There is just so much difference. Someone is talking about lawyer stuff
and puts on a blazer. Girlfriends talking about kindergarten. I think it is mega nice that we can get
together, and also that we can be challenged and stripped of all that, because that dude, the homie,
stood out because he didn’t look like the rest of us. And it is not because we all must look the same at
all. It doesn’t matter at all.
Charlotte expresses a common perception running across all interviews: there is room for everyone in CHALK
because once you are working out your social distinctions do not or should not matter. As the quote exemplifies,
Charlotte recognizes markers of social class, but uses the anecdote to articulate the observed norm that the ‘dude’
is welcome and that his perceived class belonging does and should not marginalize him. Thus, social distinctions are
not invisible, but there is shared tacit agreement to ignore them. The low threshold of social participation once the
workout has become everyday practice is matched by practitioners' common experience of a high threshold of
entry: acquiring the physical skills, understanding what things mean and learning to navigate the social and physical
space constitutes an initial steep learning curve which is a selection mechanism. Once practitioners are ‘in’, socio‐
cultural group distinctions have little practical effect, so there is ‘room’ for both Lone and the homie.
The idea of there being ‘room’ for everyone also manifests physically. In this case the question of whether you
are ‘in’ depends on whether you understand the non‐discriminatory culture and the idea that you are equal before
the workout. Firstly, Charlotte's description of the ‘uniform’ can mean both the mental ‘uniform’ of the egalitarian
culture, a place where your skills and strength are taken into account in how you perform the workout, but where
these factors do not make you inferior or superior to other practitioners. It does however also describe that people
change into uniform outfits that is, physical markers of difference are, to a degree, erased. Secondly, the physical
room also plays an important part in creating the physical threshold from outside CHALK to inside CHALK. In the
literal meaning of threshold, you step inside a safe, egalitarian space, once you step into the workout room. In
addition to practitioner Charlotte's quote, we also find empirical evidence that this accepting space extends into
room for queer identities. Consider the following example of a coach revealing sexual orientation,
88
-
BURØ ET AL.

Coach Kim is instructing a set of 25 wall balls*: ‘If you need a break during the set, then do a quick one,
breathe and think of something nice. (I think of) rainbows, unicorns, and glitter because I’m that kind
of person.’ Later, reflecting on this, Kim jokes self‐ironically: ‘I once said, during a workout, that wall
balls are the only balls I do.’
(Note, 22/11/21).
In the situation, indicators of private queer identity (non‐binary) and sexual orientation (non‐heterosexual) are
articulated but kept strictly personal, and practitioners are not asked to condone, show respect, or perform allyship.
This leads us to suggest that the egalitarian culture is conditioned by a tacit collective commitment to recognize and
remain indifferent toward differences, a shared understanding which practitioners learn quickly as they become
enculturated. This allows people to be equally present in the same room and do the same exercise. In an interview,
Coach Jonas summarizes the ethos;
we don’t care who you are. Come as you are. Well, as long as you don’t come with a swastika on your
forehead or something.
There is no room for those who have no room for others, no tolerance for the intolerant. These quotes and
excerpts are indicative of what we understand as a culture of equality. Coach Jonas' statement should however not
be taken at face value. In fact, our data does not show that CHALK is inclusive, if that means organized to include
particular groups of people and their specific needs––such as disability, but it shows that it is socially diverse.
Reading the quote along with the other empirical material, that is, our observations of how what is said plays out in
practice; it is more accurate to describe the CHALK culture as one of ‘equality before the workout.’ The idea is that
the snatch or any other exercise does not discriminate between class, ethnicity, age, sexuality, religion, or gender:
What should matter is one's competence in the craft and performance in CHALK.
3.4.1
|
Gender
In its focus on performance, the egalitarian culture forms a space that seems to induce an attitude of indifference.
But some differences matter. While every practitioner walking through the door to CHALK is recognized as a
person different from everyone else, level of competence, mobility, experience, and stamina are more important
than sexual orientation, ethnicity, profession, religious observation, etc. However, gender is a tricky social differ-
ence. Biological sex on the aggregate has implications for body size, muscle mass, and mobility. CHALK, like any
other CrossFit box, distinguishes between biological sex in setting the standards (Rx) for exercises. For example:
Dumbbell snatch* 24 kg/16 kg
A distinction is drawn between a binary male (24 kg) and a female (16 kg) standard. Observations and in-
terviews are saturated with anecdotes of female presenting practitioners that lift heavier than male presenting
practitioners, and of men lifting the female Rx. Thus, Rx is a heuristic device that practitioners use to evaluate their
performance, which means biological sex and gender are factors in creating social order. Considering the following
sentiment expressed by Yasmin, a female practitioner,
I can get a high if I lift heavier than a man. I notice that inner sense of victory. And it can be a newbie
who just started, and I can be like ‘you will get there.’ It didn’t take long before he lifted heavier than
me in almost anything really. But there were a few times where I thought ‘…you lift the same as me.
BURØ ET AL.
-
89

You are twice my height and male. You are just physically and biologically stronger. But we lift the
same.’
This excerpt shows how Rx and performance is mixed up with biological sex and gender. The gendered dis-
tinctions sometimes become inscribed on the material themselves, such as when CrossFit boxes distinguish be-
tween male and female barbells––something CHALK has replaced for distinction in kilos (Figure 8).
CHALK provides a space where women can experience doing hard workouts and lifting heavy with little regard
for the gendered aesthetics of looking pretty and sounding nice. Coach Michael says: “The meaning [here] is that it
is a free space for the flaws, the grunting, and the loud noises…” In the social order of CHALK, biological sex and
gender are recognized because they condition performance in terms of physical capacity and gendered exercise
behavior, but gendered identities and self‐evaluations are also something to overcome: women can lift heavy, be
noisy, be sweaty, smelly, and strong, and men can lift light, be quiet, and small in stature.
Another example of how these gendered identities are challenged can be seen in what we, with a nod to
Halberstam (1998), call ‘tomboy‐ish behavior’. This complicates the way gender is performed within CHALK and
opens up for a variety of masculinities that do not include the adjective ‘toxic.’ Leaning on Halberstam's (ibid, p. 5)
discussion of female masculinity, we think of the queer gender performances in CHALK as tomboyism, defined as an
“extended childhood period of female masculinity.” A period after which, following puberty, women are subdued
into gender conformity. A recurring illustration of the tomboy‐ish behavior women are encouraged to perform in
CHALK is freely using and taking up space in ways often not permitted in other organized settings, such as with
grunts, moaning, sweating, exerting physical strength, or even just physically commanding your workout space. In
the words of coach Michael:
Fundamentally, we are in the process of creating a culture, where women dare stand out and show
the nasty blisters on their hands from too many pull‐ups and try to normalize sweat by the body’s
sweat on the floor after a workout.
This includes, but is not limited to, observing a pregnant body snatching and being visible, claiming space both
physically and audibly without the belly getting to signify any particular meaning, unlike in other organizational
settings (Dahlman et al., 2020). Combined with studies asserting that CrossFit as a movement helps shift the body
image and ideals for its female practitioners away from the ‘skinny’ and toward the ‘strong’ (Coyne & Wood-
ruff, 2020; Gipson, 2022; Laus et al., 2022; Washington & Economides, 2016), CHALK creates a space where the
female body is accepted and even encouraged to perform masculinity.
Thus, gender does matter, but not in the way we would expect it to. CHALK distinguishes between the
gendered aspects that it deems relevant (prescribing weight loads based on biological sex), and those that should be
ignored (women being expected to take up less space). CHALK as a safe space, however, also faces internal con-
tradictions. We see challenges to the egalitarian culture and paradoxes in both being free from gender roles and
never being able to escape them. An excerpt of Charlotte's statement from earlier captures this succinctly:
I often thought that there are many different kinds of people…it is like we wear a uniform in the box.
All the ladies wear tight leggings and a sports top.
Later, Charlotte explains how once you physically step out of CHALK, and out of your uniform, there are people
donning their workwear but also ‘[g]irlfriends talking about kindergarten.’ While she points out that there are ‘many
different kinds of people’, and that they ‘wear a uniform’, the uniform is still gendered. Charlotte does not tell us
what the male uniform is, if a uniform exists outside of a male‐female gender binary, nor does she explain if she
believes women's uniforms being tight (as leggings and sports tops usually are) matter or if men also talk about
kindergarten. Some gender norms seem to have snuck in, but it is not clear to what degree or if people are
90
-
BURØ ET AL.

negatively affected by them. Hence, there is a barrier between being inside and outside CHALK, but this barrier is
also permeable. As we saw with the female coaches facing issues having their authority acknowledged by some
male practitioners, there are exceptions to the condition of being ‘safe’. In some ways, the norms are challenged by
practitioners, and even encouraged to be challenged, but in others they have still found their way through the
barriers surrounding the safe space.
3.4.2
|
No mirrors, off with the shirt
There are no mirrors in CrossFit boxes, practitioners cannot make themselves the object of their own gaze. The
same goes for CHALK. Coach Jonas offers a functional reason: ‘Your brain cannot concentrate on doing compli-
cated movements while you are looking at yourself.’ If a practitioner needs to evaluate a movement, they must ask
the coach, another practitioner, or record a video. The mirrorless gym supports the idea that CrossFit is functional
training, and it increases the use value of the coach and other practitioners. The mirrorless box relates to another
recurring visual trope of CrossFit: the shirtless workout. Bodies glistening with sweat, muscles pumping. The first
time author T's shirt came off was at the end of a taxing work out, exactly a month after he had started attending
CHALK.
FIGURE 8 Barbells* (20, 15, and 10 kg).
BURØ ET AL.
-
91

I won’t do that again. It felt invasive. The others in the class, especially the men, were soft around the
edges and I felt that even if I am not ripped and am myself soft here and there, I felt like I allowed
myself to do something that they do not.
(Fieldnote, 02/12/21)
Half a year later and many WODs passed, author T no longer had any reservations dropping the t‐shirt. He had
seen it done so many times by men, women, ripped, toned, bulky, and soft bodies. It is a delicate aspect of CrossFit
because it involves making one's body available for the evaluative gaze of others, as much as it involves not really
caring about what others think in the heat of the moment. We asked coach Martin what supports welcoming people
who show up, weighing what they themselves believe to be too much.
In our box, half is CrossFit, and the other half is not…We want people to feel welcome and actually
feel that despite how you do it and how you look, how old you are, injuries, and being overweight.
Everyone must feel welcome. I know it would work for us if people, especially in Open Gym, kept their
shirts on. We have some who show up, turn around, and leave again. We have some who wept when
they started here because they were to stand next to people without t‐shirts. That is how violent it is
for some who are not in the community. People entering the CrossFit community quickly discover
that it does not matter.
The practice of going shirtless is neither expected nor frowned upon, rather it is considered a normal thing to
do if you're drenched in sweat and comfortable with your body. At the same time, we understand going shirtless in
a mirrorless gym as an effect of a form of exercising that prioritizes the ‘mechanics, consistency, intensity’ of
working out, not the good looks of working out. The absence of the gaze and the act of removing the t‐shirt are
cultural devices that function to regulate the social order of CHALK. It sets a threshold of entry and participation:
you need to learn to share the assumptions that you are not working out to look at yourself and dropping the shirt
is not about showing off your six pack, as the six pack should not matter. What should matter for those who are ‘in’
and have enculturated the social order is doing what you must to endure and completing the workout.
4
|
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
We begin by addressing the elephant in the room: CHALK is not a place where queers and women can train to
become like ‘real,’ straight men. The association between strength, men, and masculinity is a historical and cultural
contingency, persistent as it may be. Strength in the physical sense is not and cannot be a privilege that only men
enjoy. Rather, becoming strong can be a pleasure for all bodies to pursue if they so desire (Figure 9).
Based on our ethnographic case study, we assert that CHALK achieves becoming a place and space of physical,
psychological, and social safety. Not in the absolute sense, which at least theoretically remains an impossibility
(Christensen, 2018), but through three co‐constitutive organizing mechanisms that we have shown analytically to
be what achieves the safe space. These are: (1) coach‐led learning and practice, (2) a norm of scaling Rx, and (3) an
egalitarian culture. That coach‐led learning progression of the physical craft of CrossFit exercise actively prevents
injury is in line with other studies (e.g., Weisenthal et al., 2014). We have shown how the dynamic relationship
between Rx and scaling works against setting idealized norms that few can meet yet feel compelled to pursue at
personal risk. Finally, the egalitarian culture enables members to participate regardless of age, gender, ethnicity,
socio‐economic class, sexual orientation, and prior exercise experience (Campbell, 2020). In addition, we observe
that CHALK enables practitioners to be bodies whose signifiers of sexual orientation, socio‐economic class back-
ground, profession, religion, or other categories that fix the body to a set identity marker should not matter in
92
-
BURØ ET AL.

practice. Differences are recognized but either do not become salient or do not get to matter in respect to the
WOD. Rather, it is the case that CHALK enables a temporary emancipation from the confinements of what Butler
called the ‘persistent impersonation that passes as the real’ (1990/2007, xxxi). Instead, gender performances that
emerge are embedded in functional performance and are less a matter of pure visual presentation and other gender
signifiers. This, we discuss next.
As our analysis shows, since it is possible to be an openly queer body in a CrossFit space and feel at home,
then we can make the straightforward assertion that CHALK is a space safe for queer bodies. In extension, we
assert that it is also a safe space for female bodies––which seems to be a riskier claim. Our analysis shows that in
CHALK female bodies are free to express masculinity (what we call tomboyism): be aggressive, lift heavy, sweat,
make noise, and take up space; and they are free from both toxic masculinity and the constraints of hetero-
normative femininity: be cute, be skinny, look sexy, don't take up space. This should however take into
consideration that there are, as there always will be, challenges, and that these freedoms are never absolute or
permanent.
Second, this is enabled by CHALK's high threshold of entry. Once practitioners are physically inside CHALK,
changed into the uniform, ready to be coached, and knowing any exercise can be scaled, practitioners are repro-
ducing an egalitarian social space. However, once practitioners leave, they once again step into a society where
heteronormative gender descriptors and performance very much matter. The gendered gaze still exists inside the
FIGURE 9 Female practitioner performing a set of five power cleans, wearing Pride socks. Used with
permission from practitioner.
BURØ ET AL.
-
93

walls of CHALK, but the focus is explicitly being put on the workout and not on performing gender or looks. Thus,
the barrier between inside and outside is decisive, as the locker room shows: changing from CrossFit uniform into
the uniforms of everyday. CHALK is not a space that exists free of norms. This is never a property of safe space, nor
any other space. We claim that the produced space creates behavioral norms that permit members to be safe to act
in ways that differ from those that exist outside of CHALK.
Our case study adds an overlooked property to the understanding of safe spaces by demonstrating how they
can emerge as effects of the continuous everyday practices that we observe in the WOD. A safe space is first and
foremost a collaborative achievement: it is an experience produced by ongoing socio‐material practices by a group
of people (Emirbayer & Maynard, 2011). It follows that if any of the mechanisms falters, the safe space falters.
Having an egalitarian culture combined with coach‐led exercise, however, without scaling as the norm will result
in macho‐/muscle‐centric authoritarian training. Similarly, in an egalitarian culture where scaling is the norm but
exercise is not coach‐led, the outcome is amateur ‘broscience’ with risk of physical harm or injury. And if exercise
is coach‐led and scaling the norm, yet with no egalitarian ethos what you get is assimilatory, monocultural
proficiency—not safe space (see Figure 10). This tells us that the mechanisms are co‐constitutive and that taken
together they are sufficient conditions for the production of safe space. On their own, they are but necessary
conditions.
As demonstrated in the diagram, we may meaningfully conceive of spaces that are physically safe, psycho-
logically safe, or socially safe (See Figure 11). Further, we may identify spaces that produce combinations of two
kinds of safety. But our data suggest that safe space is a product of three kinds of safety in concert. The im-
plications are striking. First, this conceptualization of safe space is different from the intentional and declared
safe spaces (see e.g., Pascar et al., 2022). What we find interesting is that both types of safe space share the
property of being organized to meet a specific need: a sense of safety. We do not find any indicators that
emergent safe spaces are ethically or normatively better safe spaces than declared safe spaces, but our data
suggest that they are qualitatively different. The social safety that is the intended purpose of the declared space,
particularly when formed by minority, alternative or non‐conforming groups (Kenney, 2001), is an integrated
property of the emergent safe space.
Second, our study of CHALK provides evidence that a safe space does not require declaration or strict
policing to be safe, but it requires enculturation to the particular culturally sanctioned pattern of behavior that
produces safety from harm and discrimination. This implies that the collaborative nature of safe space requires
ongoing participant commitment to the norms and tenets of the organizational culture. Thus, we are arguing
that on the one hand safe space may be difficult to achieve because it requires what Becker called concerted
action and shared assumptions (Becker, 1982) and on the other hand that safe spaces do exist in unlikely
places.
Intentional and declared safe spaces are meant to provide members safety from something and safety to
something. Paraphrasing (Kenney [2001], p. 25) safe space is about the forces that ‘create and threaten’ safety. Our
main contribution is to encourage a more holistic approach to what safety may entail. CHALK practitioners are not
just safe from injury in the physiological sense thanks to the coach‐led training but are also largely safe from toxicity
associated with hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Messner, 1995) and even their own
evaluative gaze. Positively, CHALK practitioners are safe to express themselves regardless of level of competence. We
show empirically that focus on functional strength and technical skill is part of the organizing mechanisms that
make CHALK a safe space. Yet, no safe space is chiseled in stone, why its maintenance is dependent on who is
involved in the processes of its social organization. It is an ongoing achievement. Delimited to the training space of
CHALK, our case study can only be indicative of a broader development and must be supplemented by further
analyses of the organizing mechanisms that create safe spaces, especially in places where you would not expect
them to be.
94
-
BURØ ET AL.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work is funded by Independent Research Fund Denmark, grant number: 1028‐00205B: Confessionalization in
Society and the Ethical Neutrality of Companies. PI: Stefan Schwarzkopf, CBS.
FIGURE 10 The co‐constitution of forms of safety in CHALK.
FIGURE 11 The co‐constitution of forms of safety in general terms.
BURØ ET AL.
-
95

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
None.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data available on request from the authors. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Thomas Burø https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7076-3853
ENDNOTE
1
A glossary of the most common terms used in CrossFit can be found in the appendix. We mark such terms in‐text with *
to signal that the term is defined in the glossary.
REFERENCES
Allen‐Collinson, Jacquelyn. 2009. “Sporting Embodiment: Sports Studies and the (Continuing) Promise of Phenomenology.”
Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise 1(3): 279–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/19398440903192340.
Ángel Rodríguez, Miguel, Pablo García‐Calleja, Nicolás Terrados, Irene Crespo, Miguel Del Valle, and Hugo Olmedillas.
2022. “Injury in CrossFit®: A Systematic Review of Epidemiology and Risk Factors.” The Physician and Sportsmedicine
50(1): 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2020.1864675.
Bailey, Brogan, Alex J. Benson, and Mark W. Bruner. 2019. “Investigating the Organizational Culture of CrossFit.” Inter-
national Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 17(3): 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197x.2017.1329223.
Bain, Alison L., and Julie A. Podmore. 2021. “More‐Than‐safety: Co‐creating Resourcefulness and Conviviality in Suburban
LGBTQ2S Youth Out‐Of‐School Spaces.” Children's Geographies 19(2): 131–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.
2020.1745755.
Bairstow, Sam. 2007. “‘There Isn’t Supposed to Be a Speaker against!’ Investigating Tensions of ‘Safe Space’ and Intra‐group
Diversity for Trade Union Lesbian and Gay Organization.” Gender, Work and Organization 14(5): 393–408. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468‐0432.2007.00357.x.
Becker, Howard. 1982. “Culture. A Sociological View.” The Yale Review: 513–27.
Boyd, Danah. 2014. It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Caldas, Carla Christina, and Fabricio Miranda. 2021. “Profile and Formation of the Professional Coach Acting in a CrossFit
box in Rio de Janeiro.” Information Technology innovations in Economics, Finance, Accounting, and Law 2(3).
Campbell, Natalie. 2020. “Gatekeepers, Agency and Rhetoric: An Academic’s Reflexive Ethnography of ‘doing’a (Failed)
Adaptive CrossFit Project.” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 12(4): 612–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2159676x.2019.1645727.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oakes. California: Sage.
Christensen, Jannick F., 2018. “Queer Organizing and Performativity: Towards a Norm‐Critical Conceptualisation of
Organizational Intersectionality.” Ephemera 18(1): 103–30. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/queer‐
organizing‐and‐performativity‐towards‐norm‐critical‐conceptualisation
Clark‐Parsons, Rosemary. 2018. “Building a Digital Girl Army: The Cultivation of Feminist Safe Spaces Online.” New Media
and Society 20(6): 2125–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817731919.
Collins, P. H. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment. 2nd ed. New York:
Routledge.
Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender & Society
19(6): 829–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639.
Coyle, Fiona. 2004. “Safe Space’ as Counter‐space: Women, Environmental Illness and ‘Corporeal Chaos’.” Canadian
Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien 48(1): 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1085‐9489.2004.01e08.x.
Coyne, Paige, and Sarah J. Woodruff. 2020. “Examining the Influence of CrossFit Participation on Body Image, Self‐Esteem,
and Eating Behaviors Among Women.” Journal of Physical Education and Sport 20(3): 1314–25.
Crawley, S. L. 2022. “Queering Doing Gender: The Curious Absence of Ethnomethodology in Gender Studies and in So-
ciology.” Sociological Theory: 07352751221134828.
Crockett, Matt C., and Ted Butryn. 2018. “Chasing Rx: A Spatial Ethnography of the CrossFit Gym.” Sociology of Sport
Journal 35(2): 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2017‐0115.
96
-
BURØ ET AL.

Dahlman, Sara, Jannick Friis Christensen, and Thomas Burø. 2020. “The Fact of the Belly: A Collective Biography of
Becoming Pregnant as a PhD Student in Academia.” M@n@gement 23(1): 125–30.
Dominski, Fábio H., Pedro de Orleans Casagrande, and Alexandro Andrade. 2019. “O fenômeno CrossFit®: análise sobre o
número de boxes no Brasil e no mundo e modelo de treinamento e competição.” RBPFEX‐Revista Brasileira De Pre-
scrição E Fisiologia Do Exercício 13(82): 271–81. http://www.rbpfex.com.br/index.php/rbpfex/article/view/1691.
Drum, Scott N., Bryanne N. Bellovary, Randall L. Jensen, Maggy T. Moore, and Lars Donath. 2017. “Perceived Demands and
Postexercise Physical Dysfunction in CrossFit® Compared to an ACSM Based Training Session.” The Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness 57(5): 604–9. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0022‐4707.16.06243‐5.
Edmonds, Shaun. 2021. “Is Injury “On Brand”? Examining the Contexts of the CrossFit Injury Connection.” In The Palgrave
Handbook of Sport, Politics and Harm, edited by Stephen Wagg and Alyson Pollock, 405–28. Cham: Palgrave.
Edmonds, Shaun. 2020. “Geographies of (Cross) Fitness: An Ethnographic Case Study of a CrossFit Box.” Qualitative research
in sport, exercise and health 12(2): 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2019.1602559.
Edmondson, Amy C. 2018. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation,
and Growth. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Douglas W. Maynard. 2011. “Pragmatism and Ethnomethodology.” Qualitative Sociology 34(1):
221–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133‐010‐9183‐8.
Fast, Jina. 2018. “In Defense of Safe Spaces: A Phenomenological Account.” Atlantis 39(2): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.7202/
1064069ar.
Feito, Yuri, Chris Brown, and Alex Olmos. 2019. “A Content Analysis of the High‐Intensity Functional Training Literature: A
Look at the Past and Directions for the Future.” Human Movement 20(2): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2019.
81020.
Fleming, Peter, and Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee. 2016. “When Performativity Fails: Implications for Critical Management
Studies.” Human Relations 69(2): 257–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715599241.
Flensner, Karin K., and Marie Von der Lippe. 2019. “Being Safe from what and Safe for Whom? A Critical Discussion of the
Conceptual Metaphor of ‘safe Space’.” Intercultural Education 30(3): 275–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2019.
1540102.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case‐Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–45. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077800405284363.
Fournier, Valerie, and Mihaela Kelemen. 2001. “The Crafting of Community: Recoupling Discourses of Management and
Womanhood.” Gender, Work and Organization 8(3): 267–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468‐0432.00132.
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In
Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, 109–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frenkel, Michal, and Varda Wasserman. 2023. “Bodies In‐between: Religious Women's‐only Spaces and the Construction of
Liminal Identities.” Gender, Work and Organization 30(4): 1161–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12958.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1991. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gilmore, Sarah, and Kate Kenny. 2015. “Work‐worlds Colliding: Self‐Reflexivity, Power and Emotion in Organizational
Ethnography.” Human Relations 68(1): 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714531998.
Gipson, Christina. 2022. “A Qualitative Exploration of Social Media Consumption and Use Among Everyday Women Who
Participate in CrossFit.” Research Directs in Health Sciences 2(1). https://doi.org/10.53520/rdhs2022.10425.
Hak, Paul Taro, Emil Hodzovic, and Ben Hickey. 2013. “The Nature and Prevalence of Injury during CrossFit Training.” The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research Publish Ahead of Print. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000000318.
Halberstam, Jack. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Have, Paul T. 2005. “The Notion of Member Is the Heart of the Matter: On the Role of Membership Knowledge in Eth-
nomethodological Inquiry.” Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 30(1): 28–53.
Hennink, Monique M., Bonnie N. Kaiser, and Vincent C. Marconi. 2017. “Code Saturation versus Meaning Saturation: How
Many Interviews Are Enough?” Qualitative Health Research 27(4): 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1049732316665344.
Herz, J. C. 2014. Learning to Breathe Fire. New York: Crown Archetype.
Heywood, Leslie. 2016. “We’re in This Together:’ Neoliberalism and the Disruption of the Coach/athlete Hierarchy in
CrossFit.” Sports Coaching Review 5(1): 116–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2016.1198581.
James, Eric P., and Rebecca Gill. 2018. “Neoliberalism and the Communicative Labor of CrossFit.” Communication and Sport
6(6): 703–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479517737036.
Kenney, Moira. 2001. Mapping Gay L.A. The Intersection of Place and Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kerry, Victoria J. 2017. “The Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity in the Semiotic Landscape of a CrossFit ‘Cave’.” Visual
Communication 16(2): 209–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357216684081.
BURØ ET AL.
-
97

Ketchum, Alex D. 2021. ““All Are Welcome Here?”: Navigating Race, Class, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Age, and Disability
in American Feminist Coffeehouses of the 1970s and 1980s.” Gender, Work and Organization 28(2): 594–609. https://
doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12595.
Knapp, Bobbi A. 2015. “Rx’d and Shirtless: An Examination of Gender in a CrossFit Box.” Women in Sport & Physical Activity
Journal 23(1): 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2014‐0021.
Knapp, Bobbi A. 2015. “Gender Representation in the CrossFit Journal: A Content Analysis.” Sport in Society 18(6): 688–
703. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2014.982544.
Ladwig, Robin C. 2022. “Proposing the Safe and Brave Space for Organizational Environment: Including Trans* and Gender
Diverse Employees in Institutional Gender Diversification.” Gender and Management: International Journal 37(6): 751–
62. https://doi.org/10.1108/gm‐06‐2020‐0199.
Laus, Maria F., Alessandra C. Pereira Junqueira, Sebastião Sousa Almeida, Telma M. Braga Costa, and Viren Swami. 2022.
“Body Image, Muscle Dysmorphia, and Muscularity Concerns: A Comparison of CrossFit Athletes, Weight‐Trainers,
and Non‐athletes.” Motricidade 18(1).
Lenneis, Verena, Jeppe Klarskov Hansen, and Sine Agergaard. 2022. “CrossFit during Lockdown. The Promises and Pitfalls
of Digitally Mediated Training for Leisure‐Time Physical Activity.” Leisure Studies: 1–16.
Lichtenstein, Mia Beck, and Tanja Tang Jensen. 2016. “Exercise Addiction in CrossFit: Prevalence and Psychometric
Properties of the Exercise Addiction Inventory.” Addictive behaviors reports 3: 33–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.
2016.02.002.
Mavrandrea, Panagiota, and Fragiskos Gonidakis. 2022. “Exercise Dependence and Orthorexia Nervosa in Crossfit:
Exploring the Role of Perfectionism.” Current Psychology 42(29): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144‐022‐03585‐y.
Messner, Michael A. 1995. Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press.
Montalvo, Alicia, Hilary Shaefer, Belinda Rodriguez, Tan Li, Katrina Epnere, and Gregory Myer. 2017. “Retrospective Injury
Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Injury in CrossFit.” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 16(1): 53–9. https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5358031/.
Mullins, Nicole. 2015. “CrossFit: Remember what You Have Learned; Apply what You Know.” Journal of Exercise Physiology
Online 18(6). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A438289987/AONE?u=anon~505e9b1b&sid=googleScholar&xid=f78
6889b.
Murphy, T. J. 2012. Inside the Box: How CrossFit® Shredded the Rules, Stripped Down the Gym, and Rebuilt My Body. Boulder:
Velo Press.
Nash, Meredith. 2018. “Let’s Work on Your Weaknesses’: Australian CrossFit Coaching, Masculinity and Neoliberal
Framings of ‘health’ and ‘fitness’.” Sport in Society 21(9): 1432–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2017.1390565.
Noy, Chaim. 2008. “Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research.” International
Journal of Social Research Methodology 11(4): 327–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305.
Ornella, Alexander D. 2015. Clothed with Strength: Meaningful Material Practices in the Sport of CrossFit. Material Religions
blog. https://www.thejugaadproject.pub/home/clothed‐with‐strength‐meaningful‐material‐practices‐in‐the‐sport‐of‐
crossfit.
Palfrey, John. 2017. Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces: Diversity and Free Expression in Education. The MIT Press.
Pascar, L., Y. David, G. Hartal, and B. W. Epstein. 2022. “Queer Safe Spaces and Communication.” In Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Communication.
Powers, Devon, and D. M. Greenwell. 2017. “Branded Fitness: Exercise and Promotional Culture.” Journal of Consumer
Culture 17(3): 523–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540515623606.
Prewitt‐White, Tanya, Christopher P. Connolly, Yuri Feito, Alexandra Bladek, Sarah Forsythe, Logan Hamel, and Mary Ryan
McChesney. 2018. “Breaking Barriers: Women’s Experiences of Crossfit Training during Pregnancy.” Women in Sport &
Physical Activity Journal 26(1): 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2017‐0024.
Pronger, B. 1992. The Arena of Masculinity: Sports, Homosexuality, and the Meaning of Sex. Macmillan.
Rodriguez, Jenny K., Evangelina Holvino, Joyce K. Fletcher, and Stella M. Nkomo. 2016. “The Theory and Praxis of
Intersectionality in Work and Organizations: Where Do We Go from Here?” Gender, Work and Organization 23(3):
201–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12131.
Ryan, Gery W., and H. Russell Bernard. 2003. “Techniques to Identify Themes.” Field Methods 15(1): 85–109. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1525822x02239569.
Sanchez, Carlos. 2019. “Women of Color in the Box––Safe spaces in CrossFit and HIIT.” In Feminist Applied Sport Psychology:
From Theory to Practice, edited by Leeja Carter. London: Routledge.
Sarachild, Kathie. 1978. “Consciousness raising: A radical weapon.”: na.https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/wp‐content/
uploads/2021/03/Feminist‐Revolution‐Consciousness‐Raising‐A‐Radical‐Weapon‐Kathie‐Sarachild.pdf.
Schrijnder, Suzanne, Noortje van Amsterdam, and Fiona McLachlan. 2021. “‘These chicks go just as hard as us!’(Un) doing
gender in a Dutch CrossFit gym.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 56(3): 382–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1012690220913524.
98
-
BURØ ET AL.

Scott, Rebecca, Julien Cayla, and Bernard Cova. 2017. “Selling pain to the saturated self.” Journal of Consumer Research
44(1): 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw071.
Scott, Rebecca, Katharina C. Husemann, and Tim Hill. 2019. “Identity verification through pain in extraordinary consumer
experiences.” In Handbook of Research on Identity Theory in Marketing, edited by Americus Reed and Mark Forehand,
255–69. Edward Elgar Publishing.
The Roestone Collective. 2014. “Safe Space: Towards a Reconceptualization.” Antipode 46(5): 1346–65. https://doi.org/10.
1111/anti.12089.
Thompson, Craig, and Anil Isisag. 2020. “Why Do consumers put their bodies at risk? A reflexive modernist analysis of
CrossFit’S marketplace culture.” In NA Advances in Consumer Research, edited by Jennifer Argo, Tina Lowrey and Hope
Schau, Vol. 48, 1112–7. Duluth: Association for Consumer Research.
Thompson, Craig J., and Anil Isisag. 2022. “Beyond existential and neoliberal explanations of consumers’ embodied risk‐
taking: CrossFit as an articulation of reflexive modernization.” Journal of Consumer Culture 22(2): 311–30. https://doi.
org/10.1177/14695405211062058.
Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003t. “Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review.” British Journal of Management 14(3): 207–22. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467‐8551.00375.
Washington, Myra S., and Megan Economides. 2016. “Strong is the new sexy: Women, CrossFit, and the postfeminist ideal.”
Journal of Sport & Social Issues 40(2): 143–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723515615181.
Waugh, Chris. 2019. “Defence of Safe Spaces: Subaltern Counterpublics and Vulnerable Politics in the Neoliberal Uni-
versity.” In Time and Space in the Neoliberal University, edited by Maddie Breeze, Yvette Taylor and Cristina Costa,
143–69. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weisenthal, Benjamin M., Christopher A. Beck, Michael D. Maloney, Kenneth E. DeHaven, and Brian D. Giordano. 2014.
“Injury rate and patterns among crossfit athletes.” Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2(4): 232596711453117.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967114531177.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Thomas Burø, Ph.D., is Assistant professor at Department of Engineering technology and Didactics at the
Technical University of Denmark. He uses ethnography to study the intersection between culture, organization,
and activism. He is still working on his Clean and Jerk.
Jannick Friis Christensen is PhD in Diversity Management from Copenhagen Business School (CBS) and works
as Lead Diversity and Inclusion Engagement Partner in Novo Nordisk R&ED P&O Business Partnering. He has
in recent years studied LGBT þworkplace inclusion and the phenomenon of pink washing in the context of
corporate‐Pride collaboration through strategic partnerships and employee resource groups.
Linea Munk Petersen, MSc in International Business and Politics, is a research assistant at Copenhagen Uni-
versity. She has published articles on universal basic income in Critical Sociology, socio‐technical imaginaries of
femtech in MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research, and creative on subversion on Reddit in
Social Media þSociety, amongst others. She works with a myriad of topics but focuses primarily on the so-
ciology of work, alternative organization, and critical theory.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.
How to cite this article: Burø, Thomas, Jannick F. Christensen, and Linea M. Petersen. 2025. “A Safe Space
in a Strange Place: A Case Study of the Safety Mechanisms of CrossFit Culture.” Gender, Work & Organization
32(1): 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13134.
BURØ ET AL.
-
99