Knowledge Exchange Workshop Overview

Knowledge Exchange Workshop: Creative and Participatory Methodologies that support Mobilisation of Community Assets for Health 

Overview written by Dr Rodney Reynolds, Research Fellow, Mobilising Community Assets to Tackle Health Inequalities

Overview of Knowledge Exchange Workshop, hosted on 20 March 2025, 11 - 12.30

Key Speakers included:

• Marisa de Andrade – REALITIES (Researching Evidence-Based Alternatives in Living, Imaginative, Traumatised, Integrated, Embodied Systems), Scotland
• Rebecca Watterson – CHOICE (Challenging Health Outcomes/Integrating Care Environments), Northern Ireland

Introduction
Mobilising Community Assets to Tackle Health Inequalities has created an ongoing programme of events to support and encourage the projects it has funded throughout the UK to share knowledge and approaches to integration of community assets into the integrated care structures that exist in the local communities. On March 20th 2025, the first Knowledge Exchange Workshop focused on Creative and Participatory Methods took place online. The workshop featured Marisa de Andrade of the Researching Evidence-Based Alternatives in Living, Imaginative, Traumatised, Integrated, Embodied Systems (REALITIES) initiative based in Scotland and Rebecca Watterson of Challenging Health Outcomes/Integrating Care Environments (CHOICE) from Northern Ireland. 

Each speaker described how their programmes utilise creative methods within the frameworks of their community co-created objectives and broad-based project activities. Afterwards, we opened the workshop to comment and discussion that followed the interests and concerns of those in attendance. Below, I summarise the content of the discussions that took place during this event and feature interventions and observations offered by some of the workshop participants. 

The Ask and The Challenge
Professor. Helen Chatterjee, Director of the Mobilising Community Assets programme, framed the purpose of these knowledge sharing events with an invitation for even more integrated participation from project representatives. Helen acknowledged a central challenge of the “Mobilising” framework that seeks to combine both traditional data (e.g., quarterly reports) and the creative outputs produced in the projects. Helen solicited project leaders to contribute ideas for how to collate this evidence, perhaps through an exhibition at a museum or arts organisation, a book, zines, or a film. Helen encouraged the group to think about and share ideas for a possible collaborative output that would highlight their creative work — which could help mobilise community assets within integrated care structures. We intend the ongoing workshop events to stimulate this conversation to create a powerful group health asset from shared work.

Key Question and Takeaway

One of the participants offered a spirited intervention towards the end of the workshop that captured the central thrust of the event. They offered a critique of the conventional approach to integrating creative work with data, evidence, and research, noting that people often try to “domesticate” creative outputs within established frameworks. They then suggested reversing the question by challenging the normative understandings of what constitutes evidence and knowledge, particularly within academic and research contexts. They highlighted the tendency in academia to view creative outputs merely as outputs rather than as knowledge artifacts, which means that they only become valid knowledge when written about in a specific academic style. How then can we collectively reconsider these assumptions and narrative structures to more effectively include and value creative work in research?

The Presentations

Becca Watterson 
Becca described a participatory action research project led by a group of individuals with lived experience of severe mental illness. The group, under the guidance of a research team, chose to explore why people with similar experiences disengage from education. “Choice” is developing surveys, conducting interviews, and planning to create participatory theater based on their findings.

The project is entirely led by the participants, who have undergone research skills training and are responsible for all aspects of the project. This hands-on involvement has had a significant impact on them, with two participants even enrolling in Open University degrees, attributing this decision to their involvement in the research process.

The project also extends to community mental health service users, with one participant taking the initiative to approach their psychiatrist to expand the research to in-patient services, leading to potential for a second project. The project emphasises co-production, social change, and empowering participants as researchers, with minimal external support. It demonstrates the transformative potential of inclusive research and the positive impact of engaging with academic institutions.

The project began with a small group of participants (about 12) from four mental health services. Initially, some were hesitant to come to the university, so separate workshops were held in safer, more comfortable spaces for them. The goal was to introduce them to research skills and allow them to dictate their own research topics. The group initially had mixed feelings about research, as many had negative past experiences, feeling research was often extractive.

The process involved building trust, fostering open communication, and supporting their ideas, which helped develop relationships. Over time, some people dropped out, while others joined. The group’s dynamic was based on collaboration, peer support, and openness, without strict formalities. Activities like afternoon tea helped strengthen the relationships, breaking down hierarchies and fostering a sense of community among the participants.

Marisa De Andrade
Marisa discussed the work of the “Realities” consortium, which focuses on researching creative methodologies to address societal issues like homelessness, trauma, poverty, and marginalisation across Scotland. The consortium operates in five geographical hubs, employing a range of creative practices—such as mural painting, podcasting, collaborative writing, woodwork, and tapestry—to engage with communities and explore how creative processes can generate meaningful data.

The key challenge Marisa addressed is how to make sense of the data generated by “Realities” creative methods. She emphasised the importance of understanding the ontology (the nature of being) behind these specific creative practices and asks how to translate them into evidence. Drawing inspiration from post-qualitative thinkers, Marisa argued that knowledge, ethics, and reality are interconnected, and that creative work should be analysed as a way to understand the lived experiences of marginalised individuals and communities.

Marisa used metaphors, such as a floating ice sculpture and the artwork of Edward Munch, to describe how meaning is derived from the results of creative practices. Marisa also discussed the difficulties of connecting creative work with broad systemic data sets. Marisa noted challenges like the lack of infrastructure and difficulties with data sharing, particularly in marginalised settings and communities such as prisons or among refugees.

Marisa presented the creative process as a way to disrupt and challenge existing systems, thus providing new insights and perspectives on issues like social inequality. Marisa highlighted the role of creative community engagement in fostering relationships and opening up new possibilities for change. Ultimately, the aim ought to be to use creative methodologies to generate real-world impact and to foster collaborations that can challenge and improve existing systems.

Discussion
In reflection, one of the projects described the “story circles” approach, where people with lived experience of ill health, as well as staff, researchers, and artists involved in creative health, share their personal stories. Each participant tells a 5-minute story about their experience with creative health, without any immediate reflection or questions. After all stories are shared, themes are identified and discussed. This method has been very successful and will continue throughout the year.

This use of creative and participatory approaches in workshops with various groups, such as children, young people, and adults in special schools has been very successful. The balance between using different senses in these workshops and the need to adapt to participants’ preferences, especially when too much stimulus might be overwhelming was shared. The speaker reflected that there is some grappling with the idea of using creative outputs—like songs, artwork, and sculptures—as evidence or data in research. Questions were raised about how much of this creative work should be used explicitly as data and how transparent they ought to be with participants in programmes about the intention for this kind of use. Significantly, it was recognised that there is a tension between creating art for expression and treating it as research evidence, and trying to navigate this process is an ongoing challenge.

Marisa De Andrade describes how storytelling is used in their work, particularly in the context of neurodiversity and prisons. “Realities” is conducting a study called “Released, Reimagined” in their hub, which uses creative expressions like writing, theatre, and dramaturgy to explore deeply personal stories of people in prison or those with difficult experiences. The goal is to create a safe space for these stories to unfold, allowing them to reveal insights about neurodiversity, health in prison, and the integration of prison systems with broader society. Storytelling, in this context, serves as a crucial method for sharing sensitive experiences and gathering meaningful data.

Marisa discussed a shift in how creative methodologies are perceived, moving from being seen as merely “disruptive” to having “eruptive potential.” This shift is explored in a chapter written for a book by Pam Bernard at Cambridge University. The idea is that creative methods, once seen negatively as disruptive, now offer the power to open up new possibilities for understanding and connecting complex lived experiences to broader societal issues. This approach bridges the gap between scientific and non-scientific methods, combining them in a way that was previously not possible.

Marisa discussed the development of an alternative evidence base, focusing on immersive, experiential, and visual methods to present data. The team is working with partners from Edinburgh University to create an immersive experience where users can “walk through” data sets. This approach helps highlight obstacles or system blockages and enables a more interactive, tangible experience of the data, making it more engaging and meaningful. The team is experimenting with digital and physical tools to enhance the understanding and embodiment of data.

Becca Watterson emphasised the need for humility and self-reflection within academia and policy and argued that while traditional academic outputs (like journal articles) are often prioritised, alternative forms of knowledge, such as zines, should also be accepted as valid. Becca linked the issue to the arrogance and hierarchy present in these fields, suggesting that academics and policymakers need to overcome their egos and acknowledge that knowledge can be produced in various forms, whether from academic research or community-based practices. In this broad context, Becca reflected on the challenges faced by working-class individuals within academic institutions, where they often enter with idealistic intentions but must also navigate financial realities. She highlights work in the “Choice” project, where they facilitate zine workshops with participants, creating zines as a form of knowledge. Despite some skepticism from other academics, the speaker argues that these zines are valid forms of knowledge in their own right, deserving recognition by politicians and institutions without needing to be transformed into formal policy papers. Becca emphasises the importance of embracing creative outputs as valid research and hope that this approach will inspire others to adopt similar practices, potentially leading to broader change.

Encouragingly, Marisa emphasised that creative practices and art are increasingly being recognised as valid forms of evidence and knowledge, gaining traction with policymakers, practitioners, and academics across various fields. This shift to non-traditional forms of information in policy spaces disrupts traditional educational and research approaches, particularly within institutions, where creative outputs are now being considered as assessment and evidence. Marisa highlights the growing acceptance of this movement, noting the importance of integrating both artistic and scientific approaches to create a more holistic understanding of issues. This collaboration between creative and quantitative research is helping to challenge past perceptions of art as less legitimate and is contributing to broader acceptance and change.

The final speaker expressed their gratitude for the interesting discussions and presentations but also shared a sense of frustration. The final speaker felt that the work is often expected to conform to certain standards, and there’s an underlying assumption about how the world works, which can limit creative expression. They emphasised the need to work with people using different communication methods, especially those who are linguistically deprived, and to focus on understanding basic concepts. While they appreciate the value of the discussions, they were frustrated by the language barriers and gaps that hinder progress in research and collaboration. Despite this, they found the day’s discussions helpful.

Reflection

Increasingly, creative methods are emerging as an important set of activities and actions through which place based initiatives are developing the concrete ways in which local activities can become replicable and distributed throughout a health system. The evidence from the creative methods sessions suggests that these approaches work. They enable health seekers to lower the barriers that might have stood in the way of utilising health services and they simultaneously engage communities in fun and inviting ways to share experiences and life won expertise.