One could argue that creativity is an inevitable part of all research; if
you define creativity as making something or as the ability to perceive the
world in new ways, it is indeed true. Every research project is in some
sense unique and even if you use methods and theories used by many
researchers before you, you need to put them together in your own way. For
that, you need to be creative. Ever since the reflexive turn in
anthropology and ethnology, creativity can be understood as an inevitable
part of ethnographic epistemology. As discussed by James Clifford and
George Marcus in the influential bookWriting Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (1986), ethnographers do not merely collect the ethnographic material, we
write it or create it as well. Conceptions such as 'thick descriptions' and
'faction' suggest that creative approaches are part of a longer tradition
that problematize the division between facts and fiction, reason and
affect, as well as objectivity and subjectivity in ethnographic practice.
Ethnographic research does not strive to be replicable – not many
ethnographers would even believe that it would be possible for someone else
to carry out an ethnographic study in the exact same way as a predecessor.
Creativity is therefore an integral part of ethnographic practice.
In this theme issue, however, we will discuss and show examples of research
that is creative in a way that pushes the boundaries of traditional
research a bit further. Research that not only recognizes how the
researcher is a co-producer of all ethnography but also actively seeks out
collaborations with artistic research practices or creative writing for
example. The articles in this issue all describe and analyze how creativity
can take place in ethnographic research and how that influences the
ethnographic work. This editorial is to be read as an introduction to the
collected articles and here we will also contextualize ethnographic
creativity by giving some examples on how ethnography and creativity can go
hand in hand.
Ethnography as a Creative Process
Ethnography is understood here as something that permeates the whole
research process. It is thus not only a research data collection method,
but a more holistic approach of doing research that can be incorporated to
the whole research process from project planning to research output
including fieldwork, analysis, and writing. Thus, creativity can be part of
all or some of the parts of the ethnographic research process.
Creativity might mean to use methods and concepts such as ethnographic
fiction (Silow Kallenberg 2017), dirty ethnography (Jauregui 2013; Silow
Kallenberg 2015), ethnographic film making (Vannini 2020), the using of
drawings and art in ethnographic work (Siim 2020), as well as the
inspiration one can get from reading fiction (Ingridsdotter 2017),
listening to music or in other ways being creative in the ethnographic
research processes (cf. Ingridsdotter & Silow Kallenberg 2018).
Further, creative methods can also include collaborative, experimental and
embodied ways of doing fieldwork.
Other scholars have also suggested that creativity is an important part of
ethnographic research. For example, in the introduction of the edited
volume Creative Practice Ethnographies the editors argue that
creativity can be used in three ways in the ethnographic process, namely:
“techniques, translation and transmission” (Hjorth et al. 2021).Techniques refers to the actual methods and concepts, translation is about movement of ideas from one form to another
and finally, transmission is about making and communicating
research. These parts are not however understood to happen in linear
processes separate from each other, but are rather viewed as dynamic,
generative, and intertwined.
Furthermore, in a recent edited volume
Challenges and Solutions in Ethnographic Research. Ethnography with a
twist
the editors argue for a “twist” that emphasizes creativity as one of the
ways to conduct ethnographic research with novel and innovative approaches.
Creativity is here understood as something that can be utilized when
approaching fields as co-produced and co-created (Lähdesmäki et al. 2020).
In addition to new ways of doing ethnography and producing research
material with others, this means for example collaborations with other
professionals, such as artists, filmmakers, programmers, and game designers
(2020:xxi). Creative approaches that utilize collaborations with
participants and professionals can also dismantle or address power issues
of ethnography by problematizing who the producer of knowledge is. Creative
methods and genres can be a means to highlight social complexities that are
excluded or simplified in more traditional scholarly texts and research
processes (cf. Ingridsdotter & Silow Kallenberg 2018). However, in this
issue the articles focus on the researchers or artist/researchers’
creativity when doing ethnography.
Finally, in a volume called A Different Kind of Ethnography
(2016), one of the editors claims that our everyday lives are composed by
creative practices and use of imagination that in turn shape and are shaped
by our social relations, politics, and cultural formations (Culhane
2016, 3). Thus, creative methods to this kind of everydayness are needed.
The ethnography is then understood as “entangled relationships” among
different actors such as humans, non-humans, natural, social, and virtual
environments. This kind of methodology questions the epistemological
starting point in what ethnographic knowledge emerges from detached
observations. But instead, the knowledge emerges from conversations,
co-practices, and conversation among people active in different kinds of
entanglements (Culhane 2016).
Creative Academic Writing
Following discussions on self-reflexivity and “writing culture” (Clifford
& Marcus 1986), ethnographic writing has been widely discussed and
experimented with. It seems as if the creativity of ethnographers is often
expressed in writing. And that makes sense, because writing is what most
researchers have in common however different fields of research we are
engaged in. “What does the ethnographer do? - He writes,” as Clifford
Geertz writes in his influential book The Interpretation of Cultures (1973, 19). Writing is often also
the common denominator even when other creative approaches are explored.
Creative academic writing need not necessarily culminate in published
texts, instead it can be used as a method for processing and exploring
one’s material (cf. e.g., Petö 2014, 89). Sociologist Laurel Richardson has
defined writing as just such a “method of inquiry” (Richardson 2000b); to
her, writing is as much a matter of knowing as it is of telling (Richardson
2000b; cf. Koobak 2014, 96; cf. Rosaldo 2014). Gender studies researcher
Nina Lykke has also emphasized that writing is indivisible from the
research process and that writing should be considered part of the
analytical process (Lykke 2014). The argument is that we do not simply
think first and then write down our thoughts, our scientific ideas are
stimulated by the act of writing in different styles (Lykke 2014, 2; cf.
Richardson 2000a).
Anthropologist Renato Rosaldo also thinks in similar terms when he reflects
on his own method for using ethnographic poetry to achieve insight into a
subject (Rosaldo 2014, 106). Rosaldo argues that his mission as a poet “is
to render intelligible what is complex and to bring home to the reader the
uneven and contradictory shape of that moment” (Rosaldo 2014, 107). In her
texts about “poetic inquiry,” Sandra L. Faulkner suggests that writing
poems can work as a method to connect body and mind – intellect and
emotion, and as a means to remain embodied and reflexive in one's research
(Faulkner 2020:2). To write poetry in the realm of research is to play with
the form of writing to “meld the scientific and the emotive” (Faulkner
2020:14).
Many scholars have also recognized that other genres are needed to depict
certain aspects of life. For example, Mary Louise Pratt discussed how the
emotional aspects that are a part of human interactions – and that are
accentuated in contexts characterized by social vulnerability and human
hardship – are often difficult to combine with the expectations for
academic writing (Pratt 1986, 32). Other authors have also recognized the
creative potential and practices of autoethnography – another strand of
research that allows to bend the form of academic writing a bit (e.g.,
Ellis 1999; Custer 2014). One could argue that creative research demands
creative forms of writing. Anthropologist Tami Spry (2001) has described
how autoethnographic writing often comes to her in a more poetic form than
the forms normally associated with traditional scholarly prose (Spry
2001:721).
Several researchers emphasize the creative potential and practices of
autoethnography (e.g., Ellis 1999; Custer 2014). As with the genre known as
ethnographic fiction, it is also the interpretive aspects that are
highlighted when the inherent creativity of autoethnography is discussed.
Visual and Sensory Ethnography
Visual ethnography was long associated mainly with ethnographic film making
(Banks & Howard 1997), which has a long history on its own starting
from the birth of the observational documentary film called Cinema verité, which was developed by anthropologist Jean
Rouch. Visual ethnography then referred mainly to the representation of
ethnographic knowledge and research outcomes.
It has also been common to understand visual ethnography as visual research
material. It might mean many things, such as pictures, drawings and
audiovisual recordings of the researched phenomenon and cultural products
in visual forms. This kind of material has then been analyzed as cultural
texts that represent ethnographic knowledge and as sites of cultural
productions, social interaction and individual experiences constituted in
the fieldwork (Pink 2007, 1).
In the recent 10-15 years visual ethnography has had a new context. That is
to combine ethnography and art practices that can be about co-operations or
researchers own artistic practice. One such co-operation can be found in Inequalities in Motion – a research project in what a cartoonist
was involved to document and tell the story of Estonian translocal
families. In the same project the children’s experiences of translocal
every day was studied with the help of the children’s drawings (Siim 2020).
Thus, artistic practice does not necessarily mean deploying an artist in
the project, but ethnographers can also be the one who uses art-based
methods (see e.g., Willim in this volume).
The artistic practices and visual ethnography are also understood to
address the sensory end embodied part of culture and cultural
understandings which is oftentimes perceived as difficult to access through
interview talk for instance (Pink 2005:20; Culhane 2017; Alexandra 2017).
Images and video can then address the knowledge that is hard to put into
words. Nowadays video and photography are part of everyday life through
digital devices such as smartphones. This has increased the possibilities
of the researcher to relate to our sensory environments with creativity and
imagination through recording and editing visual and other sensory material
(Boudreault-Fournier 2017:70). Furthermore, digital storytelling is a
method in which computer based audio-visual videos are used to construct
narratives that can be used to study sensory and embodied experiences and
cultural phenomenon and meanings (Nuñez-Janes et al. 2017).
In this issue we understand the epistemological starting points of visual
ethnography connected to 1980’s understanding about ethnography as fiction
that questioned the positivists arguments of the ethnographic knowledge and
emphasized the subjective nature of it. Because of this, visuals became as
acceptable as being no less subjective than written text in ethnographic
inquiry (Pink 2007, 2). The following reflexive turn that introduced new
ideas of knowledge and postmodern theoretical approaches to experience,
subjectivity and representation combined with the developments in visual
technology raised the interests to the possibilities of visual ethnography.
This Issue: Creative Ethnographic Methodologies
Alternative methodologies as well as mixed genres and other creative
approaches, helps us to multiply our views on the world, ourselves as
researchers, as well as on our research subjects. In this issue we have
collected papers that use imaginative and creative methods to ethnographic
inquiries as well as to ethnographic writing. This includes using creative
writing such as poetry, visual arts such as watercolor painting and audiovisual arts to convey research
outcomes.
Represented in this volume are researchers that were a part of a session at
the SIEF 2019 congress in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. We, the guest
editors, together with our colleague Jenny Ingridsdotter convened the panel
“Tracking changes through creative research methodologies,” where several
aspects of creativity in relation to ethnography were addressed. The
articles in this issue are further developments of a few of the papers
presented in our panel at the SIEF congress.
Ann-Charlotte Palmgren discusses poetic inquiry as a creative method and as
an instrument of knowledge production. In the article Palmgren writes poems
to access embodied experience and intertwines them with more traditional
academic prose. For Palmgren, poetic inquiry opens for a more multilayered
writing.
Robert Willim writes about his work in the intersection of research and art
– what he refers to as “more-than-academic practice.” This is something
that challenges the idea of academic work as following a linear path, where
the outcome is predicted beforehand, and instead introduces a more playful
approach where imaginative creativity is embraced.
In the article written by Willim creativity is also present in the way the authors create new concepts to understand their material and to open for further thoughts.
This shows that research creativity is not just an issue of methods but of
theory as well.
Cecilia Fredriksson is working with visual methods and artistic practice in
her contribution. She uses urban sketching in watercolors to explore public
places from an autoethnographic starting point. She reflects over the
knowledge produced through water coloring and her own position in that
practice as both an artist and an ethnographer.
We suggest that these articles in different ways address and show that
creativity is essential both for gaining knowledge about a field of
research and for communicating research results, both in- and outside of
academia. We also hope that this collection of articles can invoke interest
and curiosity in other researchers to try out more creative approaches to
ethnography and to think about in what ways ethnography is intertwined with
creative practices.
Alexandra, Darcy. 2017. More Than Words: Co-Creative Visual Ethnography.
In: Mariela Nuñez-Janes, Aaron Thornburg, Angela Booker
Practicing, Teaching and Learning Anthropology with Digital
Storytelling
. De Gruyter open Poland.
Banks, Marcus & Howard Morphy. 1997. Introduction: Rethinking Visual
Anthropology. In: Marcus Banks & Howard Morphy, Rethinking Visual Anthropology. New Haven: Yale University press.
Boudreault-Fournier, Alexandrine. 2016. Recording and editing. In Danielle
Elliot & Dara Culhane (eds.)
A Different Kind of Ethnography. Imaginative Practices and Creative
Methodologies
. University of Toronto Press.
Clifford, James & George Marcus (eds.). 1986. Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley
& Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Culhane, Dara. 2016. Imagining: An Introduction. In: Danielle Elliot &
Dara Culhane (eds.)
A Different Kind of Ethnography. Imaginative Practices and Creative
Methodologies
. University of Toronto Press.
Custer, Dwayne. 2014. “Autoethnography as a Transformative Research
Method.” The Qualitative Report 19(37).
Ellis, Carolyn. 1999. ”Heartful Autoethnography”. Qualitative Health Research 9(5).
Faulkner, Sandra L. 2020. Poetic Inquiry. Craft, Method and Practice. London & New York:
Routledge.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York:
Basic Books.
Hjorth, Larissa; Harris Anne M.; Jungnickel, Kat and Coombs, Gretchen
(eds.) 2021. Creative Practice Ethnographies. Washington DC:
Lexington Books.
Ingridsdotter, Jenny & Kim Silow Kallenberg. 2018.” Ethnography and the
Arts: Examining Social Complexities through Ethnographic Fiction.” Etnofoor (theme issue: Stories) 30(1).
Ingridsdotter, Jenny. 2017. “Att läsa sig in och skriva sig ut: litterär
gestaltning som medel för att förstå en erfarenhet.” Kulturella Perspektiv. Svensk etnologisk tidskrift 26(2).
Jauregui, Beatrice. 2013. “Dirty Anthropology: Epistemologies of Violence
and Ethical Entanglements in Police Ethnography.” In: Garriott, William
(ed.)
Policing and Contemporary Governance. The Anthropology of Police in
Practice.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koobak, Redi. 2014. “Six Impossible Things before Breakfast. How I Came
across My Research Topic and What Happened Next.” In: Lykke, Nina (ed.)
2014.
Writing Academic Texts Differently: Intersectional Feminist
Methodologies and the Playful Art of Writing.
Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Lykke, Nina. (ed.) 2014.
Writing Academic Texts Differently: Intersectional Feminist
Methodologies and the Playful Art of Writing.
Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Lähdesmäki, Tuuli; Koskinen-Koivisto, Eerika; Čeginskas, Viktorija L.A.;
Koistinen, Aino-Kaisa. (eds.) 2020.
Challenges and Solutions in ethnographic research. Ethnography with a
twist
. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis group.
Nuñez-Janes, Mariela; Thorburg, Aaron and Angela Booker. 2017.
Practicing, Teaching and Learning Anthropology with Digital
Storytelling
. De Gruyter open Poland.
Petö, Andrea. 2014. “Feminist Crime Fiction as a Model for Writing History
Differently”. In: Lykke, Nina (ed.) 2014.
Writing Academic Texts Differently: Intersectional Feminist
Methodologies and the Playful Art of Writing.
Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Pink, Sarah. 2007: Doing Visual Ethnography. Images, Media and Representation. Sage
research methods core.
Pratt, Mary Louise. 1986. “Fieldwork in common places.” In: Clifford, James
och George Marcus (eds.), Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley
& Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Richardson, Laurel. 2000a. “New Writing Practices in Qualitative Research.” Sociology of Sport Journal 17(1).
Richardson, Laurel. 2000b. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In: Denzin,
Norman K. Och Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosaldo, Renato. 2014. The day of Shelly’s death. The poetry and ethnography of grief.
Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Siim, Pihla. 2020. Drawing and Storycrafting with Estonian Children.
Sharing Experiences of Mobility. In: Tuuli Lähdesmäki, Eerika
Koskinen-Koivisto; Viktorija A.L. Čeginskas; Aino-Kaisa, Koistinen (eds.).
Challenges and Solutions in ethnographic research. Ethnography with a
twist
. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis group.
Silow Kallenberg, Kim 2015. “Smutsig etnografi – en metoddiskussion.” Kulturella Perspektiv. Svensk etnologisk tidskrift 24(2).
Silow Kallenberg, Kim. 2017. ”Tabanja. Ett exempel på etnografisk fiktion.” Kulturella Perspektiv. Svensk etnologisk tidskrift 26(2).
Spry, Tami. 2001. “Performing Autoethnography: An Embodied Methodological
Praxis”. Qualitative Inquiry vol. 7(6).
Vannini, Phillip (ed.). 2020.
The Routledge International Handbook of Ethnographic Film and Video.
London and New York: Routledge.