Grief and Collaborative Storytelling: The Colours of Loss

ABSTRACT

This article describes a novel methodology for involving the public in a creative co-produced project about grief, which invited bereaved people to work together to create a fictional story about loss and then reflect on the experience in focus groups. Devised by Crowded Room Theatre Company and researchers at the University of Bristol, the project aimed to explore the risks and benefits of collaborative storytelling about emotionally charged subjects. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts generated seven themes: storytelling as protective and enabling; support and understanding; new perspectives; connecting to grief and loved ones who have died; complicated emotions; workshop anxiety; and anticipating the audio story. These findings corroborate research that suggests storytelling can provide a safe space to explore and make meaning from difficult emotions and experiences; it may also appeal to bereaved individuals who are less likely to attend conventional support groups. The audio story created from the workshop recordings is available online (https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-colours-of-loss--53334166).

KEYWORDS:

• Grief
• bereavement
• storytelling
• creativity
• narrative
• therapy
• meaning-making
• continuing bonds

Introduction

“Grief is an emotion best understood and explained through a narrative.” (Goldie, 2012, p. 56)

The UK Commission on Bereavement (2022) identified a range of barriers to accessing bereavement support, including long waiting lists as well as factors like not knowing what help is available or feeling reluctant to reach out. The report reinforces growing pressure to find new ways for bereaved people to come together to offer and receive support, especially those who might be less likely to engage with conventional support groups. Charities, organizations and individuals have responded with collaborative community interventions, such as the Good Grief Trust’s #BetterTogether campaign for Grief Awareness Week 2023 (Good Grief Trust, 2024), Good Life, Good Death, Good Grief’s Demystifying Death Week (Good Life, Good Death, Good Grief, 2024), and the Good Grief Festival’s program of online and in-person events (Good Grief Festival, 2024; Selman et al., 2023).

Many studies have demonstrated the importance of bereaved individuals telling their story as a means to process their grief and experiences (Arnoldy et al., 2023; Lichtenthal et al., 2019; Neimeyer, 2019; Rolbiecki et al., 2021). Disclosing painful personal experiences can be beneficial, reducing the isolation and stress associated with repressing emotions (Hedtke, 2014; Neimeyer, 2019; Pennebaker & Chung, 2007). As Nelson et al. (2022, p. 4) observe, “the opportunity for a bereaved person to narrate their grief experience provides an opportunity for others to form a deeper understanding of the loss that person has gone through.” Reading memoirs, poetry and fictional stories can familiarize bereaved people with the “terrain of grief” and make them feel less alone (Higgins, 2020; Małecka & Bottomley, 2022). Memoir and autoethnography can also allow individuals to reflect on their lived experience from a slight distance, opening a space for them to engage with difficult feelings or memories and imagine alternative realities (Matthews, 2019; Ridgway, 2023).

Sharing what has happened can support meaning making, a key element of adaptive grieving (Thompson & Neimeyer, 2014; Valentine, 2019) which helps bereaved people “make meaning out of chaos, clarify values, and build connections between past and future” (Schenker et al., 2015, p. 452). Metaphors and figurative language can also capture the complexities of lived experience and provide concrete ways to envisage hard-to-grasp concepts such as death. As Norwood (2021, p. 120) writes in her study of meaning making after neonatal death, “Experience that is mysterious, unfamiliar, frightening, lacking in stories, can be made sense of if parsed through the terms of something familiar, safe, known and validated.” For these reasons, therapists sometimes use narrative approaches with their clients, even integrating them into modes of assessment (Lahad, 2013). Some therapists draw on well-known stories (such as superhero narratives) to reorient a griever’s perspective on their bereavement and allow them to think through their experiences in a new way (Harrington & Neimeyer, 2020), while others use creative narratives, metaphors and storybooks to help grieving children ask questions and have conversations about death and grief (Mukba & Akbaş, 2023; Seyderhelm, 2020; Sunderland, 2017).

Narrative therapy for bereaved people centers on storying loss, allowing individuals to construct a narrative of what happened, by reflecting on their loss and relationship with the person who died (Giacomucci & Marquit, 2020; Neimeyer et al., 2014; Peri et al., 2016; Suddeath et al., 2017). These kinds of therapies often engage two core elements of meaning making: “sense making” (constructing a narrative of bereavement that can be integrated into a wider worldview and self-concept) and “benefit finding” (recognizing indirect positive consequences of loss, such as increased appreciation of the value and transience of life) (Lichtenthal et al., 2019, p. 793). As Arnoldy et al. (2023, p. 209) observe, “telling one’s grief story is essential to meaning reconstruction, which helps grievers reshape their views of the world and their place in it after a loss.” However, these strategies do not often involve creating fictional stories about loss, a methodology which has been successfully used to introduce children and young people to talking about death and grief at school (Blake et al., 2020; Testoni et al., 2018) and in drama therapy for individuals who have experienced trauma (Giacomucci & Marquit, 2020).

Creative activities can offer bereaved individuals an indirect way to share their story, providing a more “contained” way to express painful emotions and experiences (Higgins, 2020). They can also enable individuals to take an active role in their grief and revitalize connections with loved ones who died. As Harris and Edmonds (2022, p. 119) observe, “a proactive approach to grief, especially the process of creating new images and stories that belong in the ‘now’” has the effect of “liberating memories from the past and rejuvenating them in ways that they become embedded in our lives today.”

However, engaging with grief creatively can also pose risks. For example, while Weiskittle and Gramling’s (2018, p. 21) systematic review demonstrates “modest but promising preliminary evidence of visual art modalities’ effectiveness with a bereaved population,” it also observes that some individuals’ negative grief symptoms did not change or even worsened. Dawson et al. (2021) reported similar findings: while “Storying loss, and representing it through narrative, imagery and embodied movement, can have a therapeutic impact” (p. 227), “there is no single way that the artistic process impacts a person’s memories or emotions. The effects of the artistic process on the self and psyche are as individual and multifaceted as the grieving process itself” (p. 243).

Although scholarship has demonstrated the benefits of bereaved people narrativizing their experiences or reading stories about grief, fewer studies explore the effects of creating a fictional story which engages with the emotions of loss but is explicitly not autobiographical. Even less scholarship has considered how collaboration might shape the storytelling process. This study aimed to address this gap and explore the potential for further research in this area.

Aims

Crowded Room Theatre Company partnered with researchers at the University of Bristol to investigate the impact of storytelling on the way bereaved people talk and think about their grief. Contributing to scholarship on the benefits of bereaved people telling their story and hearing those of others, the project aimed to explore whether creating fiction might provide a safe way for individuals to discuss emotionally charged subjects and consider whether telling stories about grief can be beneficial when we are grieving. It also explored how collaboration would affect both the storytelling process and the participants’ grief, emotions and memories.

Method

Procedure

The project comprised two components, which both took place in September 2022. First, Crowded Room and University of Bristol researchers ran storytelling workshops with two groups of bereaved people. The participants worked together on a story about grief, centering on the death of a beloved tree. Next, they were invited to reflect on the workshops in one of two 90-minute online focus groups.

The workshops involved a range of activities, including collaboratively building the world of the imaginary village and opportunities to write parts of a story individually and then share with the group. Table 1 provides an overview of the workshop structure.

Table 1. Outline of the workshop structure.

Introductions Facilitators introduce themselves, how they are feeling and their roles in the process. If they like, they can share a little about their own experiences of grief and what drew them to facilitating the workshop. They remind participants that they can take a break or leave the workshop at any time, and that there is a supportive person available to speak to them in a separate room if they like. They explain that the workshop recordings will be used to form an audio story. They clarify that participants and facilitators will all work together to co-create a fictional story inspired by thoughts and emotions they have experienced; however, there is no need to include personal details about their grief story (although they can if they like). Participants are invited to introduce themselves and how they are feeling. If they wish, they can also say something about their grief experiences or the person who died.

Warm-up game The group plays a word game, building a story one word at a time.

Co-creating the Story World-building: The group works together to imagine the world of a fictional village or town. What is this place? What does it look like and what is it like to live there? Where is the tree located in the village or town and what is it like? What role does it play in the community? What does it represent to people? Creating characters: The group begins to create their characters. They might like to choose from cards with suggestions of character traits or types (e.g., huntsman/healer), or they can make up something entirely new. They spend about five minutes writing about their character and their relationship with the tree, either on their own or in pairs/small groups. Everyone then returns to the group to share their ideas and explore how the different characters know each other and interact. If they like, they can share their writing with the group. Optional reading: The group reads an extract from a piece of published writing about grief, such as Max Porter’s Grief is the Thing with Feathers (2015). Writing about loss: Individually, co-creators spend about ten minutes writing about their character’s experiences of the tree dying. They can describe the tree dying, or focus on an emotional response (which could consider one or more feelings, such as shock, denial or disbelief, anger, guilt, sadness etc., which are written on cards and placed on the table). Co-creators can write in whatever form they choose: some might like to write a letter to the tree or to someone else, while others try poetry or another writing style. If they like, co-creators can share their writing with the group. After the loss: The group discusses what to do with the tree now it has died, and how their relationship with it has changed or stayed the same. What will happen to the wood after it is cut down? What happens to the space where the tree grew? How will it be remembered?

Reflections The group reflects on the story they have created; what it revealed to them; and how it made them feel. They might also discuss why they chose their character; how they felt about the other characters; and how they would describe the community as a whole. The group also talks about how they think the audio piece should sound and feel.

Debrief The group is given some time to decompress after the recording has been turned off. Participants are given a sheet of resources and places to find support.

Recruitment

A convenience sample of 12 bereaved people was recruited, primarily through social media. As the study could potentially bring up difficult emotions, the inclusion criteria specified that participants should be at least 18 years old, and that their bereavement should have occurred at least five months before the workshops. Participants gave written consent for the workshops to be recorded and then cut together to produce an audio story which premiered at the Good Grief Festival in March 2023. All workshop participants were invited to participate in a focus group. Focus group participants gave informed, written consent. All workshop participants received £75 as a thank you for participating, regardless of whether they attended a focus group. The project was approved by the University of Bristol’s Faculty of Arts Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 10501).

Participants

Two focus groups and one one-to-one interview were conducted to accommodate the availability of all participants; 8 of the 12 workshop participants chose to participate (67%). Four did not participate, but did not give a reason. All participants who took part in the focus groups were aged between 18 and 64 years and identified as White (see Table 2). Seven identified as women and 3 were part of the LGBTQ+ community. Each person had experienced grief within the last decade, with several having been bereaved within the last year. Most had previously attended events or groups for bereaved people and four were involved in organizing grief-related activities or supporting others through counseling or other services. About half had made art about their grief or worked in a creative industry. The group had a variety of reasons for participating in the workshops. Many were keen to talk about grief in a new context and interested in how a collaborative storytelling activity would work. Some participants were also passionate about increasing dialogue about grief and bereavement, with one participant (Claire) mentioning that they felt the research “could help other people.” Another, Jenny, was hoping to learn from the other members of the group, observing that they find it difficult to talk about grief without crying. Several participants noted that the participation fee was a factor in their decision, explaining that they needed to take time off work to attend their workshop.

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Focus Group Participants.

Assigned pseudonym	Age category	Gender	Type of bereavement
Claire	25–34	Woman	Parent and sibling
Fiona	35–44	Woman	Grandparent
Jenny	55–64	Woman	Parent
Lizzie	18–24	Woman	Grandparent
Rosa	25–34	Woman	Multiple bereavements
Ruth	18–24	Woman	Multiple bereavements
Stella	25–34	Woman	Parent
Tim	55–64	Man	Parent

Data collection

The focus groups and interview were conducted online via Zoom approximately ten days after the workshops concluded. They were facilitated by the second and third author, who had not participated in devising the project nor in the workshops. The focus group topic guide (see Table 3) was collaboratively designed by the research team and aimed to explore participants’ experiences of the project. Participants were explicitly encouraged to share both positive and negative views of the workshop and not to worry if their perspective differed from that of other participants. They were invited to comment on the effect of working with other people and whether the activities impacted their grief in any way. Participants were also asked how they felt after the workshop, whether they chose to discuss the experience with others, and their attitudes toward the audio story.

Table 3. Focus Group Topic Guide.

What made you want to volunteer for the workshop? How did you find speaking to and collaborating with other bereaved people? What was it like to work with a group of people on a story about grief? What did you enjoy about it? What did you find difficult or didn’t work for you? Did creating a story about loss connect you with your own experiences of grief? (If yes, then ask follow-up questions) in what way? How did it feel to engage with your own grief through a story Did the workshop have any impact on your mental health or emotional wellbeing? (If yes: explore what impact) Were there any benefits of attending the workshop? Were there any negative effects of attending the workshop? Has the workshop impacted how you think or talk about grief? Have you talked about the workshop with anyone else? Will you want your friends and family to listen to the finished audio piece? Did you learn anything new about grief from attending the workshops? Had you tried to engage with your grief creatively before the workshop? Might you try other creative activities in future? Is there anything else you would like to say?

Participants were free to leave or take a break from the workshop and focus group whenever they chose and there was a supportive person on hand to speak to them in a separate room (for the workshop) or online breakout room (for the focus group) if they wished. Both the creative and research teams were briefed on the distress protocol and the researchers remained in contact with the participants throughout the process to answer questions, listen, and signpost to relevant charities or other sources of support.

Data analysis

The third author transcribed and anonymized the focus groups transcripts prior to analysis. The first and second author then coded them independently using thematic analysis, based on Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step methodology: data familiarization; coding the full data set; developing themes; reviewing and refining themes; defining and naming themes; and writing a final analysis which is consistent with the data and reflects the research aims. The first and second author employed primarily inductive coding and generated both latent and semantic themes. They read through the transcripts multiple times in Phase 1, before moving onto annotating them with initial codes in Phase 2. In Phase 3, the first and second author compared their documents and began to discuss patterns and initial ideas for themes, in consultation with the third author. Phases 4 and 5 involved the first and second author collaboratively developing, refining and defining themes, and discarding those which were insufficiently supported by the data. In Phase 6, the first and second author co-drafted this report of the study findings, continually discussing the developing analysis to check that it accurately reflected the data and explore alternative interpretations. All names are pseudonyms and identifying information has been removed.

We adopted a reflexive, interpretative approach to the data, using strategies recommended by Berger (2015) to remain conscious of positionality, including regularly reviewing transcripts (with time lapses to allow for a fresh perspective), discussing our perspectives on the research, and connecting initial themes and codes back to the data. The first author is an academic with an interest in the relationships between grief and creativity. She has worked with bereaved people on a range of co-produced public engagement and creative projects and drew on this expertise when collaborating with the theater company. The second and third authors are PhD students who work with the first author on projects related to grief and creativity but were not involved in the initial workshop or study design.

The remaining authors assisted with designing the study, consulting on its methods and discussing and sense-checking its results. The fourth author is a play therapist with a professional interest in creative-arts and storytelling methods who collaborated on the initial workshop design and discussed the focus group findings with the first author. The fifth and sixth authors are qualitative researchers with experience of conducting sensitive research about the end of life, grief and bereavement; one is also a general practitioner. They assisted with the study’s methodology and focus group design, and sense-checked the results. The remaining authors run the theater company. They led on workshop design and delivery but had no role in the evaluation or data analysis.

Results

We identified seven themes that reflected the participants’ experiences of the workshops: storytelling as protective and enabling; support and understanding; new perspectives; connecting to grief and loved ones who have died; complicated emotions; workshop anxiety; and anticipating the audio story. The first two themes – storytelling as protective and enabling, and support and understanding – were enabling factors which allowed the participants to feel safe in the workshop, creating a kind of holding environment to express and explore feelings. These enabling factors allowed the activities to open up the next three themes: new perspectives, connecting to grief and loved ones who had died, and complicated emotions, which were sometimes painful and sometimes offered opportunities for grief processing. However, these benefits could be compromised by the sixth theme, workshop anxiety.

Anticipating the audio story related to the themes new perspectives, complicated emotions and workshop anxiety, but was separate to the primary workshop experience. The authors thus ultimately decided that it met Patton’s (2002, p. 465) two criteria for creating a separate theme, “hold[ing] together […] in a meaningful way” with “bold and clear” differences from the other categories. Writing up this theme individually also helped to uncover some of the limitations of the study and opportunities for future research.

Storytelling as protective and enabling

Generally, the participants agreed that telling a story offered them a safe space to talk about grief. Rosa reflected that storytelling “allows you at the same time to hide and reveal yourself,” especially because no one else knows “what is literally you, saying how you feel, and what is you completely making stuff up;” they discussed how this “imaginative lying” can be helpful during grief: “you need to be able to share, and you need to be able to be protected at once.” Many participants had this experience in the workshops; Fiona observed:

if you just set us in the room and asked [us to] converse about it, actually I don’t think it would have drawn out so much […] I think it kind of makes people feel a bit safer to have it in the […] context of the story. You can go a bit further with it, I think.

This effect made a particularly big difference to participants who were less comfortable talking about grief. Jenny, who often struggles to discuss bereavement, found the “different angle” helped them participate in the conversation. Tim suggested that storytelling functioned as a “practical” activity which was easier than an introspective conversation might have been, joking that the need for a purpose might be a “male observation:” “most of the men I know, I think would rather be, you know, shoulder to shoulder and doing something than face to face talking about a deep thing.” Although many of the women who participated also found it helpful to have a purpose and a focus outside their personal experiences, Tim’s perspective opens up the possibility that creative or storytelling activities may appeal to individuals or groups who are less likely to attend conventional support groups.

The story also provided a safe space for emotions that sometimes feel socially unacceptable or difficult to discuss. Rosa explained that their group’s narrative about the death of a tree gave them space to:

express that we thought things weren’t fair, and I feel like that’s such an important part of grief that doesn’t get lots of room, you know, just feeling like: “this is not fair. Why is this happening?” And sometimes in real life, when you express that, people […] want to rush to tell you that it’s going to be okay […] So, creating a fictional scenario […] kind of elicits an emotion from you that you might not feel is that welcomed in a non-fictional scenario.

Support and understanding

All participants agreed that working with other bereaved people enhanced the experience. The dynamics of the small-group workshop seemed to foster a feeling of connection; many participants cited the importance of the “collective understanding” shared by bereaved people and described how the creative activity allowed them to bond quickly (Stella). At the same time, some expressed that the clear boundaries of the activity – the fact that participants did not know each other outside of the workshop and were only coming together for three hours – allowed them to engage more freely, as they did not have to navigate their conversations in the context of an ongoing personal relationship. In some cases, the “mutual support” and “camaraderie” enabled the participants to commit more fully to the creative activities, especially as the facilitators also participated in the tasks (Fiona, Stella). They often felt validated when others listened empathetically to their stories, or shared experiences that related to their own; Tim observed that it is powerful “to recognize that you’re being heard, and nobody’s judging what you’re saying.”

This supportive and affirming environment allowed the participants to grow in confidence through the session, with many feeling sufficiently secure to access and express difficult emotions. Fiona observed that “being in a group made it safer to” engage creatively with difficult emotions, noting that they had “done a lot of creative stuff” but never about grief: “I think it’s a bit too raw to sort of poke it, maybe, and I kind of squashed it down.” Stella, who had experience creating art about their grief in other contexts, agreed that they would “be now more inclined” to work collaboratively: “there is a potential safety in a group that I hadn’t necessarily taken into account before.”

Several participants commented that the knowledge that everyone was creating a fictional story – which was at least in part removed from their own experience – liberated them to listen to other people’s stories on their own terms. Claire explained that “I was kind of like just thinking about how it went into me rather than thinking about them, which I think is a bit different in terms of like your peer-to-peer support.” Some participants suggested that it was helpful to hear the real-life experiences behind the fiction “after we came out of story-mode” (Claire), while others seemed content to focus on the story. Being heard was as important as hearing. Ruth found that watching the other group members listen to their writing helped them understand elements of their relationships and “the impact of my feelings on other people’s.” Some of the ideas here relate to the themes of storytelling as protective and enabling and new perspectives; however, support and understanding stands alone as characterizing the workings of the group.

New perspectives

At times, the distance between the story and the participants’ real experiences offered a new perspective, providing them “the room to work out what you’re feeling, […] or what you want to do” (Rosa). As Lizzie explained, “it helps you re-look at a situation.” Ruth reflected that thinking about why they had placed their character in a particular position helped them understand their grief processes: “the sort of abstract [storytelling] ‘why’ is actually the same ‘why’ in real life, which was just really useful for learning how I felt.” Others reported that they were able to access emotions in a new way. Claire observed that

it felt like it kind of delved a bit more into my maybe subconscious than a non-fictional conversation would […] I think that’s really useful because […] sometimes you can’t access that part of your emotion, if you’ve like, shut it down for so long, and it takes a long conversation with maybe a certain person, whereas it seemed to come out a bit quicker when I was writing the story about the fictional tree […] I think that’s the power of like different forms of creativity. They kind of unlock, or like, I don’t know, go into different places.

Collaborative storytelling may also have affected the kind of stories each participant chose to tell. Lizzie explained: “it’s kind of like you can just feed off of each other, and it sparks a lot more about what you actually want to write as well.” Many participants commented that the story developed in ways they did not expect, or that they accessed emotions that surprised them. Several participants who worked in art-related industries enjoyed not having to control the creative process or worry about the final product and it is possible that this allowed them to explore their emotions more freely. Rosa, who wrote about aspects of loss they had not expected, observed:

I think it’s pointless to try to channel or direct or control how these things are going to manifest, because you may think that you’re going in with one idea of what’s going to happen, but I don’t think that’s how grief works. It’s its own like beast, and you can’t go: “Well, I’m going to sort out this element of my grief today.” It doesn’t work like that.

They explained that they find artmaking most effective when they

just surrender a little bit, try not to have […] an intention really with it, which I can imagine is really hard for a lot of people. But it’s definitely beneficial if you can like kind of go: “Well, I don’t, I don’t know what I’m doing or what I want out of it.”

Some participants found that thinking about their stories alongside other people illuminated feelings they had not previously considered. Stella, whose bereavement was very sudden, reflected that the workshop enabled them to explore what it might be like to have a longer period where they knew someone was going to die. They explained that “it brought up some feelings that I hadn’t realized I had;” they “got angry and jealous” at their character for having time with the dying tree, but also set these feelings within the context of their discussions with the other participants:

we’d talked about […] the fact that there’s some people who had, you know, prolonged periods of time before the death actually happened. And you’ve got, um, anticipatory grief and anticipatory loss and, you know, all the like horrible, painful things that come with that. So it’s, you know, there’s part of me that’s like: “Well, don’t wish for that.”

Stella reported that the combination of creativity and collaboration offered a new perspective on their bereavement and grieving process: “it highlighted a lot of things to do with my own grief and my own experiences of death which was helpful, but also challenging.”

When reflecting on the workshops, most participants did not feel that the experience dramatically shifted the way they thought and talked about grief. Some thought that it might have had a more profound effect if they were less accustomed to discussing bereavement with others. Nevertheless, there were some smaller changes. Several participants felt they had become more empathetic, or developed a new perspective on an element of their grief; Rosa reflected that “the workshop allowed me to access a deeper level of acceptance […] it’s a small shift, but it means a lot in terms of […] getting somewhere, I think.” Tim explained that the storytelling encouraged them to reassess where they were with their grief.

Connecting to grief and loved ones who have died

Some participants felt the workshop helped them connect to their grief or to loved ones who had died. Although these ideas were discussed less frequently, they were a significant aspect of the experience for several participants and seemed distinct from their experience of complicated emotions. For many, the workshop brought back memories which were often vivid and painful. Ruth reflected that interacting with other bereaved people helps them feel closer to their emotions: “I think that connectedness to my own grief reflects on like when somebody in that room has lost a similar person in a similar situation.” Claire observed:

when you lose someone, you don’t get future moments. You don’t get new experiences with them, but in a way like exploring grief, and like having a new experience with it, sometimes like lends itself to a new relationship then that you didn’t notice. Or like you just feel connected to them again, like they’re still part of your life, because you’re developing a new memory, even if it’s not with them.

They noted that sometimes the impact of an activity can lessen over time, “so it’s quite nice to do something, yeah, totally new and be a bit more engaged, find […] new things.” These comments suggest that the activities facilitated continuing bonds for some participants.

Complicated emotions

While all the participants reported that they enjoyed the workshops, some also mentioned more difficult emotions. Generally, participants felt that crying or revisiting distressing memories in the workshop was a beneficial, or “productive,” aspect of the experience (Claire), demonstrating the ways in which grief-related emotions elude easy categorization as positive or negative. They felt supported by the facilitators and the other participants. However, the subject matter remained challenging and some participants found that they were not ready to process particularly difficult or more recent bereavements and instead focused on other loss-related experiences (Rosa, Lizzie). Jenny, the participant who reported always struggling to discuss grief, observed that they still found talking difficult in the workshop, even though it was “a good experience:”

as soon as I wrote anything and then went to read it out loud, I couldn’t get through it. And I knew that I wasn’t going to be able to get through it, but everybody else seemed to be able to.

Here, Jenny’s feelings about their response to their bereavement were complicated by the presence of other participants who appeared to be more able to discuss their experiences freely. Fiona also commented that they compared their experiences to other people’s. They reported worrying that their bereavement was not “as important as the ones that other people had experienced,” even though the group treated everyone’s stories as equally valid.

The complicated emotions persisted after the workshop. Several participants felt “wobbly,” “vulnerable,” or physically tired (Fiona, Ruth). Others felt “buzzing,” with Claire commenting “I could have easily done a full day.” Jenny, who had found it difficult to talk about grief, reported:

I was full of joy rather than – you’d think I’d be a bit sad and everything because I’d been talking about it. But I was actually just really happy and I couldn’t stop talking about it, and […] it felt as though it was a positive positive thing.

Jenny explained that they usually “switch off” “as soon as anybody mentions death” and that listening to the other participants “actually made a difference there;” however, they did not think they would attend another similar event (“I don’t like sadness”). Some participants felt calm, satisfied they had been able to “get some feelings out,” or “unburdened” (Claire, Ruth). Some found that the complicated emotions and experiences were difficult to express in words. Stella explained: “it’s a bit like trying to grasp smoke. Like it feels like the experience happened in the room […] It was very insular, and it was there. And then, once you leave it’s like, yeah, just weirdly abstract.”

Some participants from one workshop felt a little uncomfortable that their group had created a stereotypically quaint English village which they would have found repressive in real life (a setting that members of the other group gleefully reported to have “vetoed”) (Jenny). However, the group that had imagined a more traditional village were content that they liked the story overall, with Fiona observing that they “subverted” expectations by incorporating a same-sex couple into the narrative and Stella reflecting that “we often reach for stereotypes” because they are “easy” and perhaps allow artmakers to focus on more emotional aspects of their work.

Workshop anxiety

For many participants, the most difficult part of the experience was feeling nervous before and in the early stages of the workshop. The anxiety sometimes manifested as physical symptoms and made at least one participant consider not attending their workshop. Jenny commented: “I almost phoned and said […] I couldn’t make it um just simply because I had really bad stomach nerves, and um just felt so anxious about the whole thing. And um, but I’m glad I didn’t.” Several participants mentioned that they did not know what to expect from the experience, so it would have perhaps been beneficial to provide more details ahead of the event. Although most felt that the microphone was unobtrusive, Ruth reported “being conscious of the fact that [the workshop] was being recorded.”

Some also worried that their writing was not as good as that of other members of the group and felt a kind of “performance anxiety” (Ruth, Fiona) or desire to be a “good student” (Tim). In general, participants felt less anxious as they settled into the creative exercises and bonded with the group and facilitators. Some felt the shorter “warm up” activities helped break the ice and build their confidence before the longer creative tasks. However, Claire felt under pressure when the warm-up activity asked them to speak in turn and would have preferred to add ideas when they were comfortable. One participant wondered whether a longer workshop might have allowed more time to build trust, while others reported that it helped them to open up to know that they would only be in the group for three hours. For example, Rosa recalled thinking that the opportunity to come together with a group for a short time was “very rare – and also these people seem lovely […] I have care within this context, but I’m not caught up in the broader picture of like responsibility for how they feel.” This perhaps suggests that the workshop acted as a “container” where participants could express their emotions and then move away. Those who attended the first workshop appreciated being able to take some time to decompress together after the recording finished.

Anticipating the audio story

Although most participants were looking forward to hearing the audio story created from the workshop recordings, the anticipation was often tinged with trepidation. Some were keen to share the recording with friends and family, while others thought they would keep it private or see how they felt after listening themselves. They were pleased that their name would not be attached to their voice and some expressed unease about hearing themselves on the audio. Participants mentioned that it felt unusual not to be involved in creating the final product, and the concept left some intrigued and others a little nervous (“how will I be represented?”) (Ruth).

Although Ruth admitted that the audio story “fills me with a little bit of dread,” they also noted: “It’s strange that it’s creating something creative for the public, but it’s about quite a lot of the like weird negative personal things about your own personal grief, which is very strange, but […] it could also become really positive.” Rosa felt that listening to the audio story would also be part of the process:

the final product is the thing that is outside of you that you can, now you can like re-experience it in another way […] Our own voices might teach us something about how we feel about grief that we didn’t hear when we said [it].

Here, Rosa describes another potential benefit of engaging with grief creatively: not only can making art provide a safe way to express grief, but it also externalizes emotions in a manner that allows for self-reflection.

Discussion

The evidence from this exploratory study supports claims that undertaking creative activities in a supportive context can provide a safe space for bereaved people to share difficult emotions and make meaning from what happened to them. Participants felt that creating fiction enabled them to engage with their loss more easily, which suggests that collaborative storytelling may appeal to individuals who are less likely to engage with traditional support groups. All participants reflected positively on the workshops and some had noticed small changes in their levels of acceptance or understanding of their grief. There were no significant negative effects of the workshops, although it is important to note that the participants had self-selected to participate. The most cited challenge of the study was pre-workshop anxiety, making it clear that any future workshops run on this model should involve more wraparound support.

The collaborative aspect of the workshop was both a source of worry and one of the features that made the project so enriching. Although some participants felt nervous about joining a new group of people or worried that their grief was less “important” than that of others, they felt validated when their feelings were seen and acknowledged, and when others reported similar experiences and emotions. In many cases, the benefits of storytelling and peer-support intersect: both helped foster a safe space for participants to share experiences and connect with their grief.

However, while creating fiction in a supportive environment was enabling in some ways, it also involved different emotional stakes. Some participants worried about how their creative contributions might be judged by other members of the group, a pressure increased by the knowledge that they were being recorded and that their voices (if not their names) would become part of a publicly available audio story. Although most participants were cautiously optimistic about listening to the audio story (or even considered it part of the process), there was a tension between the sense of intimacy that developed in the group and the knowledge of the larger output; as Ruth observes, the story was inspired by “weird negative personal things” about their grief, but could “become really positive” for self-reflection and helping others understand. Participants were conscious that they did not have control of the final audio story, and this was both liberating and unsettling.

Collaborative storytelling shares similar meaning making opportunities to narrative therapy. While narrative therapy helps grieving individuals make sense of their story, fictional storytelling allows participants to imagine and reflect on more abstract patterns of emotion and experience. Participants were able to engage in sense-making when they created a narrative and sometimes experienced benefit-finding when they reflected on the stories they created in relation to their own experiences (for example, when Stella realized that the speed of their parent’s death prevented them experiencing anticipatory grief). Creating alongside other people was a dynamic and inspiring process, which encouraged participants to be fully present in the activities and improvise in an intuitive and spontaneous manner. This opened up surprising perspectives and also enabled some individuals to revitalize their connection with people who died. Claire’s comment that “developing a new memory” in the workshop helped them feel closer to loved ones who died recalls Harris and Edmonds’s assertion that a “proactive approach to grief” brings memories into the “now.”

Moreover, collaborative storytelling offers opportunities to build meaning in a shared and supported way. Thus, like other forms of creativity, it can enhance wellbeing and facilitate “grief-related tasks: maintaining a bond to a deceased loved one, accessing and expressing complicated emotions surrounding loss, and shaping meaning in the face of distress and chaos” (Buser et al., 2005, p. 180). Storytelling enables bereaved people to take an active role in grief and suggests that meaning can be generated not only from personal life narratives but also from fictional stories imagined and created together.

Implications for practice

Findings suggest that collaborative storytelling might be a beneficial intervention for bereavement group support sessions run by counselors, charities or other groups. Collaborative storytelling can bring up strong emotions, so may not be appropriate for people who are recently bereaved or who do not feel ready to explore their emotions and experiences in this way. Clinicians, counselors or charities organizing collaborative storytelling activities should implement strategies to support bereaved people through the process. Participants should be aware that they can take a break or withdraw from the activities at any point and there should be an appropriate distress protocol in place which includes having someone available to talk to any participant who wants to take some time away from the main group.

Limitations of the study and future research implications

The focus groups comprised a small number of bereaved people who were all White, mostly women, and generally had experience discussing grief and creating art, limiting the transferability of our findings. The participants self-selected onto the study (mostly from online support groups and social media) and thus were perhaps more comfortable with the project’s themes and methods than other bereaved people might have been. Some of the participants were studying to become funeral celebrants or therapists, which might have impacted their orientation toward and experience of the workshop. Several others had previous experience of making art about grief and thus may have found it easier to write about loss and share their work. It is possible that a group with less familiarity with creative activities may have been more hesitant to engage with the workshop, or more overwhelmed by anxiety. Alternatively, they may have felt less pressure to make “good” art.

Given time and resource limitations, we were unable to perform member checking in this study, which may have increased the validity of our findings. However, we used a rigorous and reflexive team approach and the findings were rich and insightful. The focus groups were held relatively soon after the workshops and before the audio story had been produced. In a future study, it would be helpful to investigate any long-term effects of the storytelling intervention and participants’ responses to hearing the final product.

Further research is needed to explore the effects of collaborative storytelling on a larger and more diverse group of participants, especially as the participants who were less accustomed to discussing bereavement found it helpful to focus on a story. It would also be beneficial to explore some of the reasons why other bereaved people chose not to participate in the study, and whether different recruitment methods could have generated more interest in the project. As some participants were anxious about making art with people they did not know and others found it liberating, researchers could also consider running a similar intervention within an existing support group.

Future studies could also explore the effects of integrating collaborative storytelling into a more sustained therapeutic intervention, rather than treating it as a one-off activity. Participants often found new perspectives on their grief not only while they were creating the story, but also when they thought back on what they had written and why they had made the decisions they had. This suggests that collaborative storytelling could function in two stages: the creative activity itself and a specific opportunity for reflection (perhaps supported by a therapist). This model has proved effective in art therapy (Rafaely & Goldberg, 2020; Suddeath et al., 2017).

Outcomes research is needed to provide quantitative data on the efficacy of collaborative storytelling. Quantitative studies could assess whether individuals who participate in collaborative storytelling are less likely to develop prolonged grief disorder (PGD), as well as exploring whether these kinds of activities have a measurable impact on quality of life for people already experiencing PGD. Research demonstrates that PGD symptoms are associated with difficulties making meaning (Lichtenthal et al., 2019), which suggests collaborative storytelling could be a helpful intervention. Alternatively, outcomes research into the impact of collaborative storytelling could utilize a research instrument like the Hogan Grief Reaction Checklist (Hogan & Schmidt, 2015), which assesses bereaved people’s emotional, cognitive and physiological state by asking them to score 61 items on a five-point scale from “Does not describe me at all” to “Describes me very well.” Qualitative studies could also establish the best format for this kind of activity, including how long after a bereavement it is most effective (or whether this varies for different individuals). It should also consider which individuals are most likely to benefit from collaborative storytelling and if there are circumstances where this intervention should not be offered.

Conclusion

The findings of this exploratory study suggest that further research into collaborative storytelling activities for bereaved people is warranted, especially regarding their potential to engage individuals who do not access conventional support groups (for example due to feelings of discomfort or the nature of the support that is offered). Working with others can provide a sense of connection and camaraderie, which helps participants to feel understood. However, collaborative storytelling can also pose risks, creating performance anxiety, unhelpful comparisons, or fears about self-disclosure. Corroborating research on the benefits of engaging with grief creatively, the study demonstrates that telling stories about loss can provide an indirect way to explore difficult emotions and experiences. It also suggests that a supportive group setting can enhance the process, enabling peer support and opening up perspectives that can be illuminating.

Ethics Review

The University of Bristol Faculty of Arts Research Ethics Committee reviewed our ethics application. It was approved on 29/06/2022 (Ref: 10501).

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the participants for taking part in our study. We are very grateful for their willingness to try something new and really appreciate their honesty, creativity and trust.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Arts Council England under a National Lottery Project Grant (NLPG-00526350)