Creative Facilitation Specialist Johanna Thren writes:
Our Creative Facilitation Unit was invited to contribute a 45-minute workshop to an event entitled ‘Understanding the value of creative methods within research’, organised in May 2026 by the Rural Durham Community Research Network. In response, Mary developed a short presentation alongside a 30-minute, creatively facilitated research planning activity. Addressing around 25 participants seated in small groups across an open and welcoming space, she offered a concise introduction to a set of accessible creative facilitation approaches.
Mary’s talk provided a focused overview of methods that can be put into practice quickly and with minimal resources. Alongside this practical emphasis, she foregrounded the ethical dimensions of creative facilitation, highlighting how questions of method and ethics are closely intertwined. Framing this through the question ‘what came first – the creative chicken or the ethical egg?’, she introduced “clean setup”, drawing on David Grove’s concept of clean language and Caitlin Walker’s work. This demonstrated how leading questions can be avoided and how participants’ own words and perspectives can shape shared boundaries and ways of working.
Mary then moved to paper-cutting as a way of encouraging “talking while making”, using simple materials to support the flow of conversation and the emergence of unexpected metaphors. Approaches to working with objects were also introduced, showing how artefacts drawn from different disciplinary or personal contexts can be brought into relation to prompt mutual recognition and collaboration. The ‘Handy Connections’ method was shared as a further example. It involves inviting participants to trace each other’s hand and respond to prompts in ways that support relational exchange and attentive listening. Across these approaches, the emphasis remained on creating structured yet open conditions in which participants can connect and reflect, particularly where the aim is to introduce new perspectives, surface implicit assumptions, or support collaborative thinking at an early stage of a project.
To begin the practical exercise, participants were invited to work in small groups to explore a rural place as a site where research can happen and where knowledge is present. Each group selected a place – such as a community centre, a shop, a farmers’ mart, or a dog-walking route – and positioned it at the centre of a page. From there, they worked outwards in stages, using colour to layer different kinds of reflection. They began by noting what takes place in that setting, focusing on everyday activities and interactions. They then moved to describing the qualities of the space – how it feels, the relationships it holds, and the experiences associated with it. Building on this, participants considered how research might be conducted there, including whose voices might be present or prioritised. Finally, the groups were invited to reflect on potential challenges, including practical and ethical considerations.
As the activity progressed, conversations deepened and expanded, with participants sharing and comparing perspectives. Modelling the process at the outset helped establish a clear starting point, after which the exercise unfolded with relatively little instruction. In this way, the activity provided a simple, collective means of recognising rural spaces as active sites of knowledge production, while also prompting critical reflection on how research might be conducted within them.
Following the workshop, participants reflected on the ideas the session had generated. We were encouraged to hear that the activity had helped develop ‘more of an idea of the broader picture of the ethics’, with one participant noting that ‘you might identify lots of things that are going on here that would be really good to do, but [you need to ask] what are the broader ethical implications of that’. After experiencing the activity, another participant said: ‘I felt put at ease – there are some really simple ways to gather some really good information’.
Participants also valued the way the activity supported reflection, describing it as ‘quite a good tool for collaboration, it is quick for everyone to join in.’
Mary and I were very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the event and left feeling encouraged by the ideas and approaches shared throughout the day. The experience highlighted the potential of concise, carefully facilitated sessions that use simple, everyday materials to open up new ways of thinking and to build connections across different perspectives, particularly in relation to research in rural contexts.
