top of page
Search

Reflections on slow academia within dance for health research

  • imogenaujla
  • May 8
  • 4 min read

I'm excited to share another guest blog, continuing the theme of reflecting - this time, Dr Ashley McGill (Roehampton University) and Dr Louisa Petts (LAMDA) discuss new methodologies and changing priorities in dance and health research. Ashley is a dance and health educator and researcher specialising in neurodivergent and neurological conditions. Louisa is a dance and health deaf researcher specialising in dance for older adults, people living with dementia, and disabled people.


Top row: Ashley McGill; photo on right by Gokul Gopan. Second row: Louisa Petts; photo on right by ReelMasterProduction.


We have known each other for many years through our work and studies at the University of Roehampton and have both been active researchers in the Dance Science/Dance for Health space. Ashley taught Louisa as an undergraduate student on the BA Dance Studies course at Roehampton before she went on to study the MSc Dance Science at Trinity Laban, which Ashley had studied years earlier. During the annual conference for the International Association for Dance Medicine and Science (IADMS) in Limerick, Ireland (2022), we re-connected after we both presented in the same opening session on the first day. After a wonderful morning of insightful discussions, we came to realise that we shared similar perspectives and decided to write something together that would allow us to share our thoughts more widely within the sector. The resulting article, Disrupting the Obligation of Objective Knowledge in Dance Science Research, was published in the Journal of Dance Medicine and Science in 2024.


Our article stems from our unique experiences in the dance, dance science, and ‘dance for health’ worlds. As researchers we have found common ground in some of the challenges faced when trying to apply highly controlled, objective approaches to researching and understanding the impact of dance, an art form that is inherently subjective, unique, and felt. We have also both experienced an apparent hierarchy at play regarding methods and designs whereby funders and publishers tend to favour standardised scientific structures and designs over approaching research through a more subjective, sometimes experimental lens. Through our conversations, reflections and writing, we began to question why research that looks at dance and health is often represented through numerical data. We wonder what is lost when the experiential knowledge of those participating in the dancing is removed from research outputs and – as we write in our article – “how dance has become the “other” in dance medicine and science research.” Consequently, numbers and statistics have seemingly become more valued than the moving body itself or the tacit knowledge acquired through the dancing experience.


Quantitative approaches to research allow for conclusions that can be generalised more broadly and produce data that is arguably easier for a wide range of people to read and understand. Numbers act like a universal language whereby people from different geographies, populations, and fields can still learn from the research even if they do not have experience with the craft. For researchers, scales and measurements that produce numerical data are often easier to use and analyse, and can be administered in a timely manner. However, the difficulty with this approach comes in the recognition that data which is easier to test and/or consume does not necessarily equate to value within a dance context.


Researching dance, and particularly dance as a means to health, is complex. The intricacies and nuances of individual dancing experiences cannot be wholly represented by numbers and statistics generated by these studies. And so while numerical data is of great importance, it is often not enough to tell the full story.


Our work aims to broaden perspectives, and encourage creativity, reflexivity and positionality within researcher processes so that we may more accurately reflect the impact and value of dancing. After the publication of our first article, we felt we had more to discuss about positionality and the role of the researcher within the research. As dancers, artists, practitioners, educators, scholars, and researchers in the dance science, dance education and community dance fields, our work is unavoidably shaped by the way we view the world, our biases and lived experiences. After collaborating with our colleague Dr Elsa Urmston, we have written our newly published article Embracing, Disclosing and Accepting Messiness in Research Practice where we explore the positionality of researchers and the decision-making processes that frame the work.


In this new paper, somatic principles are used as metaphors for the process of “practicing” and “doing” dance medicine and science research, to explore how researcher subjectivity and reflexivity might be embodied in dance medicine and science research culture more broadly. We explore what it means to disclose the thinking, doing, embodying and dancing of the research. This somatic approach requires a slower research practice which is currently difficult to negotiate amongst the pressures of Higher Education working culture.


Our article highlights how:


● A reflexive approach allows authors to acknowledge the non-linear realities of research that is inherently improvisational

● Research ought to amplify dance artist and participant voices as experts in their own dance experiences

● Accessible research practices benefit the broader research community

● Mixed and arts-based methods necessarily diversify research outputs beyond writing

● Hybridity, co-creation and collaboration allows for richer research from multiple perspectives

● Dance can be the engine that drives design, methods, research questions, analysis and outputs


We are keen to connect with researchers who share our interest in the methodological challenges that are faced when combining art, dance, science and health and who share our perspectives on dance science research.


We acutely understand that this approach can feel at odds with the current research climate focus that privileges a treadmill of fast deliverables, quick knowledge, technological advancement and economical stability. The impromptu and growing community of our collaborators has provided a sense of solidarity and slowness we value.


Say hello!


 
 
bottom of page