Exploratory analysis highlights risks and positionality in using play as a research method, suggesting transformative potential in academic practices.
The institutionalisation of play is well documented, but less attention has been paid to what happens when play becomes not only an object of study, but a way of doing research. This article explores the methodological and ethical complexities that arise when play is used as a research method within academia, where it becomes entangled with the personal, institutional, and political dynamics of scholarly life. Blending theoretical reflection, autoethnography, and a grounded ‘case in point’, I examine how play – as both practice and analytic – is shaped by power, discipline, and researcher positionality. Rather than offering best practices, I foreground the risks, failures, and ambiguities that make research with and around play difficult, but also transformative. I argue that staying with these tensions can unsettle academic norms and open more accountable, situated, and imaginative ways of doing research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dale Leorke (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: