It has become increasingly necessary for geographers and social scientists to demonstrate the impact of their research beyond the academy, as part of the academic Research Excellence Framework (REF) 1 (Darby, 2017;Evans, 2016;Pain et al., 2011). However, critical and feminist geographers emphasise the shortcomings of linear and metrical conceptualisations of impact. Instead, they argue for a more process-driven and reciprocal approach (Evans, 2016; Pain, 2014) -a form of impact deriving from collaborative relationships, knowledge exchange, capacity-building and learning together, opposing extractive forms of knowledge production (Banks et al., 2017;Darby, 2017;Pain, 2014).Co-produced research involves an extended process that usually relies heavily on face-to-face interactions between researcher and participants (Marzi, 2021). In 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic brought such interactions to a halt. Travel restrictions and social distancing measures limited the ways in which researchers could be present with research participants in one geographical place. However, co-producing knowledge, including co-producing impact, has not become less important: rather, it is necessary to ensure that impact-focused research still holds the potential to create social change and benefit research participants. As a consequence, many researchers have altered their research plans and research designs, often with the help of digital tools (Howlett, 2022), to make up for geographical distance with new forms of digital proximity.