The Wellgenics Study

What is the Wellgenics Study?

The Wellgenics Study is an ongoing critical analysis research program that applies the wellgenics framework (McNew, 2026) to commercially published wellness books across various genres. It is a theoretical expansion inquiry, rooted in qualitative and transformative paradigms, guided by a relational theory of disability (Shakespeare, 2014).

Wellgenics is a framework that was initially conceptualized in a study that focused on 13 food as medicine books for multiple sclerosis. This study extends beyond MS diet books and asks where wellgenics holds, shifts, or contradicts in the broader wellness genre, which will help to answer how far wellgenics extends and what exceptions might exist.

Research Question and Study Design

The researcher for this study is Amelia McNew, PhD.

Research Question

Are commercial wellness books contradictory or cohesive with the wellgenics framework?

For each book analyzed, the researcher will ask:

Does this book sustain or challenge themes 1-6 of the wellgenics framework?
If there is challenge, which theme(s) does the book contradict, in what manner, and how?
- Where apparent contradiction appears, does it represent a genuine departure from wellgenic logic, or does it function as a rhetorical hedge that ultimately reinforces the framework?
Does the contradictory finding warrant an adjustment to the wellgenics framework, or does it identify a boundary?
Does wellgenics operate consistently within a genre, or do some genres produce more resistance than others?

Purpose

This study critically examines wellness content that is written for and marketed to a layperson public. It analyzes the stories being told about wellness to the reader and searches for the presence of wellgenics, as defined by McNew (2026). It will also search for meaningful and sustained contradiction.

Contradiction matters because the researcher desires to understand the phenomenon. Does it extend beyond MS and disability into all chronic illness? All health management? All wellness genres? The study needs to answer, Do any books resist any of the six wellgenics themes in meaningful and sustained ways? If the answer is yes, the results will be discussed and the researcher will describe the boundaries of the theoretical framework; not attempt to suppress findings that contradict the theory.

Method

The original study utilized a reflexive thematic analysis to study 13 books. Six themes converged as a cohesive ideological concept, wellgenics, which can be used to systematically and critically analyze wellness content. This extension study is not generating new reflexive TA insights but is still approached from a narrative inquiry perspective: stories, whether explicit or implicit, are engaged so that the researcher may ask what narrative the books present to their readers and why it matters, not the specifics of how they tell readers to act, live, or think. While it will not involve the six-phase reflexive thematic analysis process, it will utilize a coding framework that tests whether existing codes from the original study are present, and will add a seventh dimension to intentionally search for books from different genres that contradict or challenge the ideological concept of wellgenics (searching for contradictory inclusion).

Results

Findings will be published on a rolling basis. The study is based on an existing framework and is not seeking to generate new themes. Qualitative research of this nature comes from a specific angle that is researcher-infused (based on specific lived experience as a disabled person and former wellness consumer alongside doctoral training as a nutrition scientist) and intentionally positional. Rolling publication of findings is consistent with the study's transformative paradigm, which prioritizes accessibility and public benefit alongside scholarly rigor.

Approach

This work serves the general public navigating wellness culture. The original study focused on MS diets, but this study extends to all wellness genres: autoimmunity, weight management, chronic conditions, aging, fertility, and beyond. Restricting findings behind journal paywalls or institutional timelines contradicts that purpose. Peer-reviewed publication will ultimately follow as a formal contribution to critical nutrition science.

Validation

Results from qualitative research are not generalizable, but may be transferable. The original study (McNew, 2026) produced a transferable concept of wellgenics that is now being systemically tested by critical review of other wellness texts.

Publication of Findings

Findings may be shared based on genre, wellgenics theme (any one of the six wellgenics themes, or a seventh category of contradiction), or as a standalone assessment of a single book. These are not ‘book reviews’ or ‘journalism’; this is an academic study by a nutrition PhD.

Inclusion Criteria

Wellness books that present food-based ideas in some form (alongside other self-care or health management, or standalone) to a layperson audience
Narrative books (no strictly A-to-Z or otherwise reference books)
Authors have credentials of some kind
Books are currently in-print and top-selling, available in the U.S., in English (limitations based on the researcher’s language and location)

A note on 'credentials'

Credentials are not necessarily accredited or validated. The original study found that credentials are primarily marketing tools when they are used in relation to best-selling books. As such, any credential can be used for marketing or manufacturing expertise, and will be included. The scope includes, and may be expanded:

MD, PhD, ND, DC, DCN, DHSc, DO, NP, RD, IFMCP, NTP, MNT, DPT, DNP, MPH

Study Duration

This study formally began on March 1, 2026 and will continue on the basis of rolling inclusion until the researcher determines that genre saturation has been met. This could conceivably mean that the study runs anywhere from 12-24 months; however, this will be determined after saturation has been reached.

Wellgenics is a living framework, subject to refinement, expansion, and challenge as more texts are analyzed. A running list of all titles analyzed is maintained here.

This study defines saturation as examination of at least 3 books in a narrow, specific genre from 3 different authors, published in 3 different years. Since this is not a quantitative study, there is some fluidity on genre determination. The researcher will maintain transparency as to how saturation is reached whenever that determination is made.

Disclaimer, Limitations, and Ethics

This study involves no human subjects and requires no IRB review or approval. All data is publicly accessible and available; no private information from individuals or organizations is used.

Disclaimer and Boundaries

This study does not determine author intent, publisher intent, reader response, or effectiveness of interventions described in the books.

This analysis is conducted under established principles of critical academic scholarship. All texts are analyzed, not reproduced; findings represent the researcher's interpretive analysis of published works, consistent with fair use in scholarly criticism.

Limitations

This study is conducted through an intentional lens (relational theory of disability; embodied knowledge) consistent with transformative and justice-centered research. It does not generate universal truths and does not speak for everyone. This same study conducted from a different theoretical stance and with a different researcher would naturally produce different findings.

References

McNew, A. (2026). Crip or cure: A document-based narrative inquiry of food as medicine books for multiple sclerosis [Doctoral dissertation, Saybrook University]. ProQuest publication pending.
Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge.