Different types of research writing use different techniques, and these are conventionally thought of as factual writing for STEM research (and a few other subjects such as law) and creative writing for qualitative research, particularly in the arts and some humanities. But, this is a false dichotomy.
Here are a few examples of creative writing in STEM research: a story about statistics, a comic about maths, some more comics about parasitology research, a pure maths doctoral thesis full of different voices and jokes and comic strips, and a book of creative writing in STEM. There are many others. And equally, qualitative and multi-modal research offers many examples of factual accounts.
Even factual accounts are creative
These accounts are created by the writer putting words together in new orders, to produce sentences and paragraphs that have never been created before. This is a creative act. Particularly so if someone is writing in English, or another language that is similarly rich in synonyms. Then even the choice of a single word may be a decision a writer has to make. Imagine you want to describe a level of heat. Is it warm, hot, boiling, scalding? Or maybe it is roasting, smoking, burning, on fire? Or perhaps sweaty, tropical, sweltering, blistering? Alternatively it could be cool, cold, chilled or frozen; below zero, icy, glacial or polar; nippy, inclement, bitter or arctic. And there are many more synonyms in English for hot and for cold.
Occasionally you come across a word with few direct synonyms such as ‘support’ (‘backing’ is its only direct synonym, though there are some related words with specific meanings that may be used as metaphorical synonyms in other contexts, such as ‘buttress’ and ‘prop’). But most English words have at least a few synonyms, and this in itself offers more scope for creative decision-making than many people realise.
Creatively written research helps audiences understand research
Then at the opposite extreme of creativity, we find research presented in graphic novel format, through animation, in play scripts and screenplays and poems. But why? Is this just for fun? To stop researchers getting bored? To enable researchers to show off? Is there any point to all this frivolity?
Indeed, there is an important point. Creatively written research has been shown, time and again, to help audiences understand the findings from research more fully than conventionally written research. What is more, people remember those messages for longer. This is so well evidenced that there is an increasing argument for all researchers to write their findings creatively. Because surely we want our audiences to understand and remember what we tell them. So rather than questioning the point of creative research writing, some of us are seriously questioning the point of conventional research writing.
But, “I’m not creative”!
And now I can hear the objections rolling in. “I am not creative,” my students tell me (before I prove to them that they are). Then they try, “OK but I can’t do creative writing” (before I prove to them that they can). Can’t do poetry? Write a little story. Can’t write stories? Make a short comic. Can’t draw? Use one of the many freely available digital options such as Canva or the PowerPoint Manga comic maker (thanks to the student on one of my courses who recently told me about this). And so on. There are many options, and while not all are accessible for everyone, each is accessible for someone.
These approaches also make research writing more accessible for many readers. And it is increasingly important for researchers to make their work accessible: to peers, participants, and the wider public. This involves using plain language wherever possible, and defining any technical or specialist terms. Even scientists are being encouraged to write more simply and clearly. And this, too, is a creative process.
Just communicate your message in an entertaining way
The next objection is usually, “But my writing won’t be any good.” There is a third important point I want to make here. “Good” in creative research writing is not the same as “good” in creative writing itself. Let’s take poetry for an example. In the wider world, good poetry is aesthetically pleasing, resonant, and meaningful. For research, poetry is good if it gets your message across and entertains your audience. It doesn’t have to reach the aesthetic standards of poetry that would be published in a magazine or an anthology. In fact it can be complete doggerel, use cliches, break all the rules – as long as it communicates your message in an entertaining way.
I can hear dusty old professors rumbling about researchers not being entertainers. There is an ethical point here too: I don’t think it is ethical to bore people. This statement sometimes alarms my colleagues so, to clarify, I don’t mean we all need to develop skills in stand-up comedy or song and dance. But there are a range of simple techniques we can learn to make our writing more engaging – many of them, ironically, the techniques of “creative writers”.
These include the use of active voice, sensory language, metaphor, storytelling, tension, repetition (for emphasis) and recapitulation (to summarise, or remind the reader). Many writers use some of these instinctively, but we can all learn to use more techniques and to use them better. I am still learning and I know my writing will always have room for improvement, because there is so much flexibility on offer that no piece of writing, except perhaps the occasional short poem, can ever be perfect.
So, key points:
All writing is creative; more creative writing helps researchers get our points across; and good creative writing for research is writing that is fit for its purpose. Also, writing creatively is ethical, and everyone can write creatively. That said, writing well does take a bit of practice. But all writing is good practice, even if it’s not yet good writing (revision can sort that out.) In fact, the only thing you can do wrong is not to write at all. So I suggest you stop reading this and go write some lovely words of your own.
Author Bio: Helen Kara has been an independent researcher since 1999 and an independent scholar since 2011. She writes books on research methods, research ethics, and academic writing. Helen is the co-author, with Richard Phillips, of Creative Writing for Social Research (Policy Press, 2021) and is running a course on Creative Academic Writing for the Methods@Manchester 2022 Summer School.