Abstract
Public health is “the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting human health through organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals.” (Acheson, 1988)
Public health research is grounded in both science and the arts: the science emphasises evidence and rigour, while the arts draw attention to people, society and culture. It is through the integration of these two approaches that collective action to improve population health and reduce inequities can be enabled. In the current global context – marked by intersecting political, social and health-related polycrises (Lawrence et al., 2024) – the value of qualitative methods in addressing contemporary public health challenges is more critical than ever. In this special collection, authors respond to this moment by offering an eclectic, diverse and rich collection of qualitative public health studies from around the world. We introduce and interpret the papers in this special collection through three methodological themes: (1) breaking boundaries; (2) diversifying creativity; and (3) centring the margins to equalise the research space.
Breaking Qualitative Research Boundaries in the ‘Science’ Behind Public Health
In expanding the evidence base for complex public health issues, authors identified new methods or approaches for undertaking qualitative research. The contributions to this special collection reflect a broader shift in public health, from a narrow focus on individual behaviour change to acknowledging the wider determinants of health and health inequalities (Wallington & Feger, 2025). There has been a growing acknowledgment of the central role of qualitative evidence in addressing complex public health challenges, rather than treating it as an add-on to quantitative research, as highlighted by Mongeon (2025). The flexibility offered by multi-method approaches – as opposed to what would traditionally be considered ‘mixed methods’ – was a common point of discussion across the collection. This was particularly apparent in the work of McLean et al. (2025), who outlined the concept of a ‘Methods Menu’. By negotiating the method that felt most appropriate, participants retained agency over how – and how much – they engaged in the project. Researchers are also able to manage time constraints through prioritising pragmatic decisions in data collection. For example, use of rapid ethnography in intervention development was discussed by House et al. (2025) as a novel way to combine methods and flexibly build on data collection over time. Mongeon et al. (2025) also used a sequential multi-method approach to move beyond unpacking issues towards developing timely and actionable recommendations.
In addition to the application of multi-methods, this collection includes contributions that leverage secondary or existing data in new ways. Repurposing a website originally developed by an artist as part of a project on feelings of loneliness, Bauer et al., (2025a); Bauer et al., (2025b) discuss how they were able to explore a breadth of experiences that may not have been otherwise achievable. As the authors describe, “[t]he high participation of roughly 2000 individuals in the project and the artist’s explicit intention to destigmatize loneliness is useful in collecting information about loneliness that would have otherwise not been shared in research” (Bauer et al., 2025b). Similarly, Tsui et al. (2025) discuss the potential of utilising COVID-19 oral history archives in research, teaching and public engagement to equitably and creatively address public health challenges. Finally, Wachinger et al. (2025) provide a step-by-step guide for their novel methodology – the Five-step FOCUS approach – for analysing online media. Across all four of these studies, the authors discuss the benefits of repurposing data but also the challenges, including selection bias, limitations with pre-defined focus, accuracy of historical information and collaboration requirements.
Defining and Diversifying Creativity as a Tool for Expanding Public Health Inquiry
This special collection advances our understanding of public health research as an art as well as a science, illustrated by contributions that integrate multiple creative methods. Fried (2025) introduces a novel methodology termed ‘artistic conversation’, using arts-based methods to explore the lived experiences of adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This approach has implications for social change by enabling participants to frame their neurodiversity as a strength, helping to “move beyond stigma to recognize resilience and relational depth”. Bleckly et al. (2025) reach similar conclusions through their multi-method exploration of how acquired deafness shapes adults’ relationships with music. By combining words, music and images, participants were able to more fully articulate the impacts of hearing loss. Their findings challenge medicalised perceptions focused on ‘fixing’ hearing loss and instead support more holistic approaches grounded in lived experience.
Darling et al. (2025) describe the experiences of researchers trained in creative facilitation as part of a project to explore school holiday experiences amongst families living in poverty. Arts-based methods were used during workshops with children and parents to generate new insights and identify areas for action. Jerwood & Allen (2025) describe the development of C-CARE – an approach encompassing Community engagement, Co-production, Arts-Based Methods, inclusive Research practice and Education. Developed across three stages with different minoritised groups, this methodology prioritises knowledge sharing throughout, highlighting the educational potential of participatory research designs. Similarly, Henderson et al. (2025) advocate for wide dissemination of co-created research outputs to support knowledge translation. They describe their experiences in fostering intergenerational dialogue across two research projects involving visual storytelling, co-creation workshops and collaborative arts-based approaches which included exhibits and public displays. Collectively, these contributions demonstrate how “multimodal dialogue… elicits sensory-rich insights beyond traditional methods” (Fried, 2025).
Other contributions achieve similar goals by employing singular arts-based methods. McGrath & Lhussier (2025) use autobiographical timelines completed with women experiencing multiple exclusion homelessness, helping to make sense of the women’s stories in ‘real time’. Ataullahjan et al. (2026) employ group object narrative to understand the gendered impact of the 2022 floods in Pakistan. Objects are used as tools to discuss difficult topics as part of a culturally sensitive and decolonial research process. Both papers echo broader themes in this collection: that inclusive methods can deepen reflexive research practice, while creating “opportunities for marginalised populations to tell stories which diverge from dominant narratives” (McGrath & Lhussier, 2025). Others incorporate creative approaches at different stages of the research process, from the use of secondary data from an artistic source (Bauer et al., 2025a; Bauer et al., 2025b) to the development of a video-based health education tool as a key output (Lovell & Greaves, 2025). These contributions encourage us to reflect on the ways that creative practice in the broadest sense can enhance the authenticity and equity of public health research.
‘Centring the Margins’ to Equalise the Public Health Research Space
Many of the contributions to this special collection attend to thorny and structural issues of power (and empowerment), positionality, inclusivity and social justice, largely through a focus on inequitable systems which can serve to vulnerabilise those who tend to need them most. Drawing on the example of community mental health care in the USA, Melino et al. (2025) demonstrate how systems can be organised to benefit powerful institutional interests rather than people. Institutional ethnography is positioned as a qualitative methodology ‘for’ rather than ‘about’ people, allowing institutional structures and processes to be empirically described and analysed. Other authors present alternative ways to mitigate the impact of inequitable spaces through inclusive methods. Examples include the studies by Ataullahjan et al. (2026) and McGrath & Lhussier (2025), which used creative methods to reposition marginalised women as ‘valid storytellers’ and enable them to engage in collective meaning making. Graves et al. (2025) employed three mapping approaches – group concept mapping, communication asset mapping and intervention mapping – to engage rural communities in health equity research. Henderson et al. (2025) demonstrate the central importance of engagement and relationality, and suggest that their methods disrupted hierarchical models of knowledge production often found in research. Each of these authors used qualitative methods to achieve common goals around “fostering social inclusion, resisting stigma, and reimagining dominant narratives that marginalize specific populations” (Henderson et al., 2025).
Other contributions introduce practical frameworks to help ensure structured and consistent approaches when conducting qualitative public health research with under-represented populations. One example is the C-CARE approach that incorporates community engagement, inclusive research practice and education (Jerwood & Allen, 2025). A second is the flexible, inclusive framework developed by Adams et al. (2026) for conducting research with people experiencing homelessness. Importantly, they position this as a ‘living framework’ that continues to evolve within ever-changing research landscapes. Several authors unpack their ethical and methodological learning from striving to overcome challenges inherent in conducting research with marginalised groups. In doing so, they provide authentic accounts of how to conduct thoughtful, realistic and impactful research in a field where one size can never fit all. Ndlovu & Thompson (2025) detail the ethical complexities in conducting participatory action research within communities where researchers have the capacity to leave the field and return to their everyday lives, and the disconnects that can occur between research timescales and the immediate needs of participants. Darling et al. (2025) advocate for the development of communities of practice that can enable researchers to strengthen their skills, specifically in relation to creative facilitation. Finally, Mason et al. (2025) identify ‘critical junctures’ that require researchers to adopt tailored, flexible approaches capable of overcoming recruitment barriers created by bureaucratic systems, which may further silence seldom-heard voices.
Summary
Taken together, the contributions in this special collection reveal the methodological richness and transformative potential of qualitative public health research. By breaking scientific boundaries, embracing creative practice and centring marginalised voices, the papers demonstrate how qualitative approaches can illuminate complexity, challenge dominant narratives and support more equitable forms of knowledge production. In a world marked by widening inequities and intersecting crises, this collection reminds us that public health must remain both a science and an art – rigorous in its evidence, yet grounded in humanity, context and lived experience. We hope this collection encourages researchers, practitioners and policymakers to see the vast possibilities of qualitative inquiry and to embed equity, creativity and reflexivity at the heart of public health research.
