Understanding Why Women Knit: Finding Creativity and “Flow”

Abstract

Knitters can be spotted in cafés, on trains, and browsing boutique yarn stores. There is some consensus that people find knitting a relaxing and fulfilling hobby, but there is limited empirical evidence as to exactly why this is the case. This article will argue that Csikszentmihalyi’s ([1992] 2002) theory of creative “flow” offers us a sound explanation for why and how knitting is beneficial. Csikszentmihalyi argues that “flow” experiences involve devoting full attention to the activity, a balance between challenge and accessibility and a sense of control. These key elements make creativity activities engaging and satisfying.

This article draws on a qualitative research project investigating why women knit. This used a staged design influenced by grounded theory. The final stage of this research involved in-depth interviews with 30 women knitters living in Edinburgh. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and thematically analyzed with support from QSR*NVivo.

Data analysis suggested that women identified benefits from knitting related to both the knitting process and knitted product, and described positive experiences very closely related to those conceptualized by Csikszentmihalyi as “flow.” These included a distraction from worries, engagement in a problem-solving process, and a sense of autonomy. Understanding the benefits associated with “flow” experiences may also be key to making sense of the investment some women make in knitting.

Keywords:

• knitting
• creativity
• flow

Notes

1. For example, Chansky (2010) has suggested that, after first rejecting textile crafts associated with patriarchy, feminism has now returned to these activities and presented them in new ways, a “resignification” of textiles under the banner of “new domesticity.” However, Groeneveld (2010) questions the language of revolution and reclamation which dominates some academic and instructional knitting literature and asks who or what knitting needs reclaiming from. Much of the literature in this area overlooks women who never left knitting and for whom it has never needed to be reclaimed on for—it was always “theirs.”

2. Appropriate ethical approval was sought and obtained. Strategies for protecting participants included seeking informed consent, and paying careful attention to the anonymity of participants. Different names were assigned to material that is quoted and data were anonymized.

3. A grounded theory approach was used because this is a strategy that tries to minimize the impact of preconceived ideas and closely respond to the data. Ways in which this was done were, for example, where possible bracketing prior knowledge until later in the research process, and setting out clearly my previous experience of knitting and evaluating where this might have impacted on analysis. In addition, later study design responded to findings from earlier stages of the research, which are not reported here, to maximize the impact of previous data rather than letting any preconceived notions of my own influence the analysis.

4. Data analysis was conducted in a rigorous manner aimed at enhancing trustworthiness through a careful and transparent process in order to create a conceptual framework directly relating to what participants told me.

5. A volunteer and snowball sampling approach was used to identify these participants. The latter was used in order to access the networks of knitters that had been observed in earlier stages of the research. The former was used with the aim of generating rich data from a sample who identified with the research project (Patton 2010).

6. In line with the grounded theory approach theoretical models derived from the literature, such as Csikszentmihalyi’s conceptual model of “flow” used here, were introduced late in the analysis so as to avoid shaping the data to fit existing theory as much as possible. This was done in order to help interpret what participants said, to contextualize the data in terms of existing knowledge, and to generate conclusions that were potentially transferable to other circumstances.

7. For example, wellbeing has been discussed in terms of creativity (Csikszentmihaly 1997), hand production of textiles (Futterman Collier 2011), and knitting (Corkhill 2014).

8. Amy found that given that the circumference of the arms of her jumper are less than of the body that the bands of color the self-striping yarn created were wider in the arms than the body of the jumper. She established this problem through knitting the jumper for the first time and, through repeated phases of planning and re-knitting, she worked out a way to ensure the bands of color ran across the whole jumper.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kate Lampitt Adey

Dr Kate Lampitt Adey works for Northumbria University as a member of the Creative Fuse North East project. Kate completed her doctoral studies at Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh. She has worked as a Teaching Fellow and Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and Napier University. Kate is also an artist, seamstress, and upholsterer.

[email protected]