Researching ‘non-sexualities’ via creative notebooks: epistemology, embodiment and empowerment

Abstract

This article contributes to and extends critical scholarship on the philosophy and practical application of creative methods. I suggest that claims commonly made regarding the ‘potential’ of creative methods can be (re)organised as claims relating to (1) epistemology, (2) embodiment and (3) empowering participants. I evaluate these claims through the contextual lens of a research project on ‘non-sexualities’ wherein I incorporated a creative element (creative notebooks) into the research design. Through analysis of research artefacts and observations of the research process, I reflect upon how the notebooks were particularly good for ‘getting at’ embodiment and had a clear epistemological value in facilitating expressions of complexity, contradictions and ambiguities. However, I also discuss my scepticism with regard to claims made about the empowering potential of creative methods, as the notebooks potentially worked to reproduce certain power dynamics rather than eliminate them. I argue that class in particular needs to be given more attention in critical accounts of creative methods.

Asexuality and epistemic injustice: a gendered perspective

“…The interviews explored a range of themes pertaining to the how gender might be 'done' (or not) in the context of asexuality, as well as how asexual experiences might be shaped or impacted by gender. Twelve participants also went on to complete a multi-media notebook, and a follow-up interview (see Cuthbert (2021b) for details of these), but the data in this article comes from the first interviews.…”

Qualitative research methods I: Emotionally engaged approaches to working with vulnerable participants

“…Creative methods, while becoming more popular, cannot be assumed to inevitably ‘democratise’ research or generate co-production. As Cuthbert (2021) found, creative methods may reproduce power dynamics in reflecting particular middle-class ways of ‘knowing’ and expressing knowledge (including terms like ‘reflexivity’ and ‘creativity’). ‘Do no harm’ requires that researchers have the ability to recognise our own limits, particularly if research slides into a therapeutic space, for example understanding when participants are not ready to discuss painful experiences even after they have given consent (Aroussi, 2020).…”

“…Yet while the studies noted above highlight the benefits of emotionally engaged research with vulnerable participants, there is a need to take care with the claims we make. Several studies note that their work has the potential to be ‘transformative’ (Baker et al, 2020), ‘empowering’ (Akehurst and Scott, 2021; Zonjić, 2021), ‘liberating’ (Townsend and Cushion, 2021), ‘justice making’ (Aroussi, 2020; see also Hammoud-Beckett, 2021), but there is little critique of the extent to which we can make such claims (Cuthbert, 2021). Research is often transitory in nature and where participants note the benefits of their involvement within a cathartic or catalytic space, more evidence is needed of long term impact (Zimmermann and Forstmeier, 2020).…”