Taking a critical look at caring-with and response-ability as co-creative practice

What has been referred to elsewhere as the contemporary obsession with creativity can, on occasion, produce an environment in which individuals feel under considerable pressure to act creatively (Weiner, 2000). This, and a wider context referred to by Rehn and De Cock (2008) as an era in which “creativity has been corralled into the service of both big business and the nation state” (p.229) (see also Leitheiser et al 2022), raises the question of how to go about nurturing and attending to co-creative scholarship without inadvertently suppressing the very voices (human and non-human) most in need of being heard.

Alongside the challenge of retaining integrity of research practice in the face of adverse external pressures to ‘be’ creative, there is, of course, also a ‘dark side’ of creativity that also needs to be acknowledged. Much has already been written about this in relation to both the ‘creative individual’ and the disastrous societal, environmental and economic impact of some creative ideas and actions (see, e.g., Cropley et al., 2010; Glăveanu et al., 2019; Leitheiser et al 2022). There is no doubt far more to be understood and discussed in this context with regards to the misappropriation also of co-creative research methods. Whilst the analysis of specific such examples and cases falls without the scope of this Unit, in this lesson we nevertheless take the opportunity to comment on why it matters that the presence and potential of co-creativity is critically reflected upon from within a care-full scholarship framework.

In practice, considerable variation occurs in the ways in which creativity features, or is invoked, during periods of data collection. We can likely all, for example, recall moments in the process of data collection that, regardless of how standard the research method, have produced intensely inspiring sessions of creative and visionary thinking; similarly, we have also all likely experienced occasions of exposure to creative techniques that have failed to produce within us, or within other participants around us, anything remarkable at all (see e.g. Humphris et al 2022; Axinte 2022).

As Axinte (2022) reflects upon, just because a research activity is designed to induce a creative encounter, or might widely be thought of as an overtly creative technique, this does not mean that it is experienced as such by the participants. Why is this? Understanding how the introduction of more overtly creative methods might be received and responded to by research participants forms a crucial part of preparing an approach that is capable of opening-up rather than closing-down the potential for co-creativity.

What are the effects, for example, of confronting particular sets of citizens with a more overtly creative method or approach? Is there a danger that too innovative, alternative or very artful forms of creativity might alienate or act as a barrier to the participation of some in the research? How can those who wrongly perceive themselves as ‘not creative’ best be supported in engaging with more overtly creative research activities in a more rewarding way (see e.g. Giambartolomei et al 2022)?

In unpacking the reasons for and effects of this variation in terms of how either more or less overtly creative methods might be received and responded to by participants, our interest here is in the possibilities that can arise from making scholars more conscious of their (potential) role as enablers of co-creativity; a role which flourishes through attentiveness and attunement, rather than any kind of overly rigid scripting.

In all of the cases illustrated within Lesson 4 above, for example, the interaction between the researcher and the researched is left very much open, allowed to find its own natural rhythm and thread. They each provide evidence of the fact that although academic research commonly requires advanced planning and care-full forethought, this in turn does not need to foreclose the possibility of spontaneity (see e.g., Leung 2022, Humphris et al 2022, Giambartolomei et al 2022).

A retained willingness on the part of the researcher to deviate from the script, to seek ways of enlivening it (Hitchings, 2012), or on occasion to ignore the script entirely – if, in the actual moment of doing, there is felt to be value in doing so – is an integral part of approaching primary research as an inclusive, emergent and situated form of practice. The fact that this is rarely acknowledged, or reflected upon, in the process of securing ethical approval, says far more about the institutionalised nature of the ethical approval than the enactment of research itself.

From this perspective, then, knowing how to investigate an issue in situ is as much about the way in which a researcher approaches, presents and guides the performance of a particular method during a research encounter, as it is about the appropriate selection of the individual method itself. At the same time, exploring and remaining open to the possibilities of collaboration requires a deep acceptance of, but also the active making-of-room for the inherent unknown potential and richness of social interaction.

Similarly, on the part of a research supervisor too, equipping the researcher with the ability (both mentally and emotionally) to accept as necessary the occasional occurrence of “mess and stumbling” in the situated unfolding of research as an emergent social practice is crucial (Tanggaard and Juelsbo, 2016:86). It is as important for their ability to ‘become with’ their research participants, as it is for a supervisor to ‘become with’ their student (Haraway, 2007).

Below Gloria Giambartolomei shares a creative method that didn't work as initially anticipated.

In this next contribution Imogen Humphris describes some unanticipated barriers to engagement in her own fieldwork and the impact that had on her developing a wider appreciation of the many factors to be mindful of when undertaking empirical research.

Below Geraldine Brown critically reflects on why she was originally drawn to the use of creative and positive tools of engagement in her work with teenage pregnancy.

And finally, Viola Hakkarainen reflects more generally on response-ability and co-creative practice in the context of striving for transformative change.

QUESTIONS:

• Have you had any negative experiences of using or observing creative methods?
• What steps need to be taken and/ or what needs to be known in advance about a particular research setting in order to avoid a negative experience of creative methods?