Annalena Oppel is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the LSE International Inequalities Institute. She holds a DPhil in Development Studies from the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. Her work involves interdisciplinary and creative approaches to inequality research.
She further works on the epistemic foundations of inequality through the lens of race and meritocracy. Prior to joining LSE, she has been a Research Associate at UNU WIDER, and a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University. She works as a consultant with partners such as GIZ, GDN, and ODI. She is interested in initiatives that rethink development research and practice through a decolonial lens.
In an email interview with Santosh C. Hulagabali for Open Interview, Annalena reflects on the profound role of storytelling as a vessel for shared emotions and a catalyst for social change. She emphasizes the growing significance of digital storytelling in scholarly communication, noting its power to illuminate the intricate interrelations and interdependencies across various fields of study. Annalena asserts that while literacy in digital storytelling can benefit from familiarity with creative writing, visual storytelling, visual arts, or film, the most essential element is a connection to one’s own creative instincts—and perhaps the courage to begin from that personal space.
.
• Storytelling is one of the important parts of the teaching and learning process from ages. But does traditional storytelling have a similar space in the research?
I would spend some time with the word ‘traditional’ first. Decolonial and expansive scholarship purposefully seeks to blur the line between what has come to be associated with traditional versus modern, analytic vis a vis intuitive, reason and feeling1.
Storytelling has been a deeply embedded practice of humanity – the stories we hold about ourselves, our own experiences, our sense-making of the world; deep stories2 that become containers of shared feelings and set directions for social change. As researchers, we write stories. We often regard our stories of research as a distinct practice; distinct as it adheres to standards of rigor, objectivity, evidence and robustness. Yet, in this pursuit, we tend to overlook the epistemic foundations of neutrality and objectivity, increasingly challenged as a subjective form of establishing a dominating universality of Western thought.
Storytelling – opening a space for the spoken, the silenced, the emotional, the subjective, the ‘unconventional’ – can reconnect research with a pursuit of knowledge beyond such theoretical confinements. It can bring research to the forefront of reimagining and reinventing lived realities; as a space of unfinished, incomplete, continual fragments; fragments that are not failures because of their incompleteness but an honouring of the mysterious nature of pluriversality3.
• Please tell us about digital storytelling and its importance in scholarly communication?
I would propose that digital storytelling is an adaptation of storytelling to our current worlds: using digital formats to convey stories. I would like to set it apart from narratives and narrative inquiry as they are often conflated. Both involve stories but I would anchor them in different epistemological traditions4. While narratives are often seen as a way of knowing and interpreting, storytelling can emphasize expression and co-creation, leaving more room for the imaginative.
Storytelling as a creative method also leaves more room for unstructured outputs, aim to build connection and empowerment for those who participate with the researcher merely facilitating an impulse followed by a ‘letting go of’. It anchors research in the process and is less occupied or geared towards set outputs.
In terms of scholarly communication, I see storytelling as a way to create research that enables audiences to see themselves in research rather than being told what research has found, building shared movements over authority5.
• Is digital storytelling more relevant to the specific research fields like social sciences and humanities or is it irrespective of any subject- be it science or engineering or medicine?
It is important to mention that every innovative practice does not seek to replace or do away with other modes of research. I would defy my own logic of ‘expansiveness’ if I were to adopt this mindset. Dismantling means a horizontal engagement with other ways of doing and knowing to me – letting them exist side by side, a way of holding (intellectual) space. I would say to what extent this is useful, necessary and meaningful depends on the topic, context, situation, ethics and politics. To what extent they hold meaning within each discipline is a judgement I cannot make. I, however, think digital storytelling (or creative methods) can be especially useful in constructing holistic perspectives beyond the (Western) fragmentation of sciences into distinct disciplines. I would promote them as a potential tool of bridge-building towards transdisciplinary research. For example, there can be medical, geographic and social science research perspectives on climate disasters where stories can convey the complex interrelations and interdependencies.
• What does it mean to you to make research ’emotionally accessible,’ and how can researchers achieve this without compromising ethical rigor?
Regarding making research ‘emotionally accessible’ I would echo my argument made earlier on: research for and less about people. In terms of ethical rigor, I would replace the word rigor with care. In my own experience, it takes a more fine-grained approach to ethical consent and co-production6. Instead of simply asking about consent for participation, it is important to let co-producers know about potential audiences and formats and let them choose with what they are comfortable with. That includes anonymisation practices, e.g. voice over, credits, masking etc. I also emphasise that they can operate within their own comfort zone, giving looser parameters and more space for creative interpretation to make sure they can participate on their own terms while understanding the overall ‘mission’ or inquiry. There is a bit of ‘letting go’ in this approach as I highlighted earlier: openness to pursue different formats, openness for coproduction and that co-producers will work within their own parameters of comfort, skill, interpretation and creative depth.
• Do you see digital storytelling as reshaping the broader landscape of academic knowledge production—and if so, what changes do you hope to see in the future?
Research is a collective practice – I would like to propose a reminder that it is not a standard framework that was simply given to us. It is one we co-create in every step of the research process and every single piece we publish. I think it is very important to acknowledge our agency here, often from quite privileged positions, in constructing that system and the responsibility that comes with it. I would hope we embrace that responsibility in a way where we begin to reform elements that need to be reformed. It does not need to be a destructive and revolutionary process but a continued commitment to take the steps to try out different approaches; particularly those that dismantle our own privilege from authority towards grounded vision building. More concretely (and perhaps cynically put), choosing a topic because it holds space and meaning for those co-creating with us over whether it has the potential to be published in an A-level journal. Embracing formats that are more accessible for a broader audience, like digital stories, both in terms of telling, sharing, witnessing, and absorbing.
• How do you ensure that digital storytelling doesn’t become extractive or overly curated by the researcher, especially when working across power dynamics or cultural differences?
I would echo co-production here and an openness to design the output in ways that fit the formats chosen by the contributors and potential audiences. There lies responsibility in building, e.g. a story of stories by taking fragments of individual submissions and puzzling them together into a new piece. Ideally, this is done in collaboration with the contributors instead of the researcher alone. In terms of cultural differences, I would encourage an un-edited approach that does not seek to re-interpret much of the interpretation of the producer of the story. Similar to art, with creative inquiry there is a shift in ‘making a point’: instead of constructing a universal one visible for all, it delegates some responsibility to the viewer to find ‘their point’ of view. I would suggest this approach leaves room for more authentic displays of collected stories.
• How do you think the medium—video, audio, photography—shapes or limits the kind of stories that can be told and the emotions they evoke?
I would like to mention Viveiros de Casto’s perspectivism here. And perhaps ‘human’ as ‘the organic ground state of a conventional mode of perceiving’ in co-existence with other modes thereof, merely separated by bodies7.
Video, audio, photography usually requires the use of a lens. A lens is looked through, pointed at, and directed by the hands holding it. With a lens we shine a light on some aspects and in that same act, cast shadows on others. Digital stories which employ a lens as a medium of telling, visualise our situatedness8. I consider this to be important in research that tackle present day challenges with epistemic implications, for example inequality. The holding of a lens (in our hands) may move our language beyond ‘bodies of literature’ towards ‘bodies of researchers’: our different perceptions and perspectives matter for what we bring to a pluriversal space of ‘knowing’. It can invite new voices to the table. Additionally, when centring emotions in telling and knowing, not as a subject of study, but mode of inquiry, visual storytelling has the potential to centre relationality and create more holistic perspectives. Resulting in a shared responsibility of sense-making between teller and viewer, I would say it perhaps challenges what we understand as limits: perhaps a shared understanding can equally hold space for different interpretations and meaning, without the need for making a (as in one) point.
• You mentioned the risk of stories becoming fragmented or misinterpreted in remote formats—do you see this as a creative opportunity or a methodological challenge?
It depends on the sensitivity of the topic – some might need more guidance and support for the storyteller to feel safe in a process of sharing. Yet a remote format may bring the required comfort for a storyteller to do so from their own space, in their own time and comfort. Given my arguments made earlier on, I would not see it as a methodological challenge per se but a room for self-determined participation, creative freedom and potentially less extractive practices – as long as the storyteller feels sufficiently supported.
• Are there any ways to measure or assess the impact of digital stories, beyond traditional academic metrics?
The first two words that come to mind are care and emotions. I see digital stories as an invitation to an audience to not only understand but to feel and empathise. This may go beyond what we conventionally understand as measurable impact. A way to trace an emotional catharsis to a story could be whether people react, talk about it, bring it up in conversation, build connection and movement around it. As this is a socially embedded process, it may not be immediately traceable and perhaps also not attributable to one story alone – but the stories of the story that emerge as a consequence. I would highlight the aspect of relatability as an important ‘success matrix’ here: are people able to see themselves in the story? It reminds me of a crucial aspect of good script writing for film and television: a main character that is not relatable (not ‘human’ enough e.g. by showing vulnerability, struggle, joy, etc.) stands to lose the attention and engagement of an audience.
• Do you think the researchers need to undergo training or require support to ethically and effectively work with digital storytelling methods?
I think this depends on the technical setup and requirements of the inquiry of both researcher and co-producers. Possibly, it can be helpful to have some literacy in the field of creative writing, visual storytelling, visual arts, film, or finding collaborators who can fill this gap. However, returning to the ethos of unfinished and fragmented research, I would also say it can be a space of trying out and learning in the process. To do so, I would say it is important to be connected to one’s own form of creativity and perhaps courage to begin from that premise. This may look different for different people. I would also say it needs an enabling environment where there is a sufficient degree of freedom to embrace new pathways for research and an encouragement to pursue them – even when and, perhaps especially when, they do not fit established academic success metrices.
* * * * *
Note • All the answers/ opinions expressed in this interview/document are of the interviewee. • This interview post has CC-BY license. • Few questions have been paraphrased using an AI tool.
Courtesy • Photo/ about Annalena: LSE and LSE Impact Blog
Suggested reading • Digital storytelling as an act of academic courage by Annalena Oppel
Cite • Hulagabali, Santosh C. (2025 June, 3). Annalena Oppel: Digital storytelling makes the audience not only understand stories but also feel and empathise. [Blog post] Retrieved from: https://openinterview.org/2025/05/02/oyunn-syrstad-hoydal-strictly-defined-academic-writing-norms-can-be-disruptive-hindering-creativity/
Santosh C Hulagabali, PhD is an Editor of Open Interview. He heads Central Library of Central University of Haryana.
He is passionate about anything that is creative, challenging and positively impacts self and others. Email: santosh@cuh.ac.in
