As the start of the new academic year begins, this week has seen numerous conferences take place across the UK. My conference of choice took me to Manchester for the 4th International Creative Research Methods Conference. This was a conference I have had my eye on for a couple of years now, after a research revelation I had whilst conducting a project in an early years setting. I arrived at the conference, armed with curiosity, a notebook, multiple-coloured pens and pencils and a sense that this was going to be like nothing I had ever experienced before in terms of a conference experience. I was not proven wrong!
This year’s theme was aptly titled ‘pushing the boundaries’ and I had the privilege of contributing to that theme, sharing my research story as part of a workshop presentation (which I had shamelessly spent months pondering on and preparing for!). However, what I was not ready for was how profoundly the conference would consolidate my ever-growing instinct as a researcher to pave the way for slower, more inclusive, sustainable choices within my research, from design to dissemination. As I entered the conference, it felt like I was stepping into a space where creativity wasn’t treated as an optional extra, but as a methodological, ethical, and political stance. My boundaries were certainly about to be pushed!
Across keynotes, workshops, and conversations, one message was unmistakable: creative research methods are not decorative, but transformative. The conference redistributed voice, agency, and epistemic power. It challenged the questions of who gets to be heard, who gets to contribute, and whose knowledge counts. It asked us to rethink what research is and who it is for. Below I share some of my key reflections and takeaways.
The conference began with Dr Ranjita Dhital’s keynote, and her setting the scene by bathing the building in a sound bath. This was significant. She was honouring cultural and intergenerational medical practices. It anchored the beginning for the research stories she then shared, highlighting the imbalance in global health research, with less than 20% coming from the global majority. She asked the room to consider what voices are systematically excluded. Her argument resounded around the room, that, creativity is a form justice. It is a way of listening differently, and noticing difference, especially to communities whose knowledge is often undervalued, overlooked or ignored. It reframes research as a relational, cultural, and ethical practice and one that must be accountable to the people it claims to represent.
What followed across the conference was a shared message that creative methods can be positioned as a way to:
- resist tokenism
- challenge Eurocentric and North American dominance
- surface practitioner knowledge
- centre children and young people’s lived realities and experiences
- value local, relational, and embodied knowledge
Nicole Brown’s work on activist practitioner research reminded me that creative scholarship is often undervalued in academic spaces. Yet it is precisely these spaces where lived experience becomes visible. It is a battle worth fighting for.
One of the strongest threads running through the conference was the idea that safety is relational. It is built through trust, boundaries, and time. It is not built through procedural ethics alone. Something someone said during a presentation really stuck with me: Not doing the research can cause more harm than doing it, if it means silencing participants.
It reframed ethics not as a hurdle, but as a commitment to designing conditions where participants, especially in my world where I find myself working mostly with children whose voices and opinions too quickly become overlooked, feel able to hold onto and value their own knowledge.
During a workshop exploring how to make research as inclusive as possible, the notion of ‘homeplace’ was framed as a methodological way of being. Here we were encouraged to imagine the full range of participant experiences and build something that could honour them. Using a range of resources, different table groups collaborated to capture this in a creative way. Here if ours:
Our group created various stick people recognising the different ways we can experience a conference. Can you relate?
This wasn’t about slowing down for the sake of it; it was about creating space for reflection, relational safety, and shared ownership. It was also a rich opportunity for play, collaboration and problem solving.
Other ideas which emerged included:
- community agreement cards
- reflective pauses built into research timelines
- relational safety practices
- co‑designed expectations for collaboration
These ideas felt like a natural extension of any research design process, where research is not just a process but a relationship.
As someone who is passionate about child voice and agency, Alistair Roy’s keynote was a real highlight. He spoke about the unique positionality of children and young people, and how creativity allows their experiences to be brought into the spotlight and not filtered through adult interpretations.
His “were going on a bear hunt” analogy captured the idea, noting that each research project is a journey. It is never repeated, always emergent and full or hurdles, that we cant go over, nor under, but have to go through… Creativity becomes a way of honouring that journey, rather than forcing it into predetermined structures.
The conference left no stone unturned when it came to navigating the research process and this included dissemination. There were powerful examples from Childhood (Vol. 31, Issue 3) that demonstrated how children can be epistemic agents and co-editors. This wasn’t about technique; it was about epistemology and ethics. This input came just after a conversation I had had with another delegate around the dissemination of the research I had shared, during my workshop titled: Lessons from an early career researcher – why our choice of methods really do matter, the previous day. The research had been conducted with 4–5-year-olds and we had shared a joke around what a journal article could look like, if they co-authored. Alistair’s message challenged the ignorance of our musings and provocatively proved that, this is not only possible but probable with the correct infrastructures and approaches.
Key ideas included:
- children writing sections of research outputs
- academics bookending children’s contributions
- recordings becoming coauthored text
- valuing partial consensus rather than forcing alignment
- designing conditions where children can genuinely contribute
Need further convincing? I encourage you to read ‘Play Tales’…
This challenged the assumption that children’s contributions must be filtered, tidied, or translated. Instead, it asked us to consider how we set the stage and whether our research choices, from design to dissemination, allow children to hold onto their own knowledge.
There were so many other moments of awe and wonder. One of the most practical and inspiring ideas was the use of artefacts, objects, images, installations, as tools for conversation and meaning‑making. I could see how talking to and through an object, toolkit or stimulus, reduces power dynamics, supports interview preparation, and enhances engagement.
Creative dissemination was also positioned as legitimate scholarship, which as an ECR and someone who struggles with black, white and linear, was both inspiring and motivating. Examples were shared in multiple formats, from music, to installations, to poetry and visual storytelling.
Afterall; “If we want research to make an impact, we need to present in ways that the audience appreciates” (Kara 2020)
These forms were not treated as extras, but as rigorous, meaningful ways of sharing research.
So, what does this mean for my research practice?
The conference didn’t simply inspire me; it shed light on an unwavering instinct to lean into creative approaches within research.
The conference reinforced my belief that…
- creative methods are rigorous
- creative dissemination is legitimate
- children can coauthor knowledge
- relational ethics matter
- practitioner knowledge is powerful
- coproduction is an ethical imperative
- slow scholarship is necessary, and can pave the way for research practice that is truly inclusive
I ended the conference feeling like I had been challenged and changed in a way that will leave a lasting mark on my practice. I feel ready to fight the good cause, as part of a community I have become part of during those two days, for the place of creativity within research practice, and obviously, desperate to embed all my new ideas into my next project… watch this space!
My favourite quote, which was referenced to on multiple occasions, came directly from the founding force behind the conference and creative research methods pioneer, Helen Kara: “Researchers who use creative methods are at risk of finding ways to express themselves, learn, and have fun.”
A powerful provocation, if ever there was one, for researchers from every background, field and positionality, to hold onto.
Leave a Reply